The Defective Society?

In pondering the causes for poverty in our advanced, wealthy societies I have been reading Henry George's "Progress and Poverty".

Granted, it was written in 1879 and has therefore been superseded by history in some aspects, there are still some basic points he makes the gist of which is that the cause of want and poverty is social and not natural.

Mr George's basic premise was to refute the tenets of Malthus whose population theory he held essentially excused the presence of the poor and needy to the natural (Godly)order of things. His argument was that Malthus allowed laissez-faire capitalists to ignore both the have-nots and the attempts of the socialists/Marxists to provide an alternative political economic view of the world.

He maintained that the earth could actually provide for all humanity, and certainly that we in the advanced nations could at a minimum ensure no one in our society need go without the basic necessities of life. The fact that we don't is because our political economic systems don't cater to this sector of society-hence it is as a result of human intervention.

But recently I have been involved in a discussion which questions this basic assumption. What if there is a group in society which is naturally predisposed to need-either actively or passively. Is there a group that is content to be classified as "needy", and is happy to be provided for?

What I am asking is not if there are people through no action of their own who are incapable of working. Incapacity does exist. It might be physical; it might be mental. It is real and in a moral society I believe we have a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves.

The question I am asking is a more basic one. Is it in the natural order of things that there will always exist a section of the population that requires assistance, and if so how do we define them, and what percentage of the whole do they represent?

There is an ancillary question however. In addition to those that don't have the same access to education, to opportunity, is there perhaps a group that doesn't have the ambition to change its circumstances?

I am aware that this is dangerous ground- but I also believe the subject has to be addressed. Does there exist a group in society that is content to receive public assistance without entering into the basic social contract. It is a free lunch, notwithstanding the fact that the amounts being disbursed to any one individual might appear to be insufficient.

Unfortunately the discussion often centers around the amount distributed focusing on the fact that it is barely sufficient, if that, to provide for the most basic living requirements. And, so the argument goes, how can a wealthy society not provide more to its disadvantaged members.

Another argument is that the cost of discerning between those that cannot fend for themselves and those that are content not to is so expensive such that it is cheaper and somehow more efficient to subsidise all of them.

I disagree.

Regardless of the problems with the inequities in compensation and taxation that occur in our society we have to ensure that everyone who can work, does. Yes it might mean a large public sector. Yes it will mean that the costs to determine who can and who can't work will have to be paid; it also means that the costs associated with determining who receives social benefits, looking at the poorest, and the wealthiest, will have to be born.

It is not a question of either social spending or not. It is not a question of Socialism or Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

It is a realisation that spending has to be controlled- and so does Capitalism.

Generally it is said that war is much too serious to be entrusted to the military. I would say society is much to important to be entrusted to economists.