Reciprocal Responsibilities

Now that the national debate is shifting (much too slowly) to a consideration of just what federal government services we can really afford without bankrupting the nation, there is a fundamental philosophical question that needs to be considered.

There is general (if not unanimous) consensus that a civilized nation needs to ensure that the poorest among its citizens should be provided (by the state) with at least a minimum of support – food, shelter, basic medical care, etc. This is, of course, a constant political cause of the liberal wing of the country.

But here is the philosophical question: if the state (meaning everyone who pays taxes) owes its poorest citizens some minimum level of support, what do these people owe back to the state? Responsibilities are never one way, at least between adults.

If we taxpayers are going to help the poorest among us, what are they going to undertake to do in return? “Nothing” is not a valid answer. If it is acceptable for some people to be pure parasites on the rest of the society, why should any of us work and strive?

This is a hard question. Some of the poorest are poor because they are mentally deficient, or because they are uneducatable, or because they are in the grip of addictions, or because they are chronically ill. It is hard to see what they can do for themselves about these conditions.

Some are poor because, in essence, they choose to be poor. They choose not to get educated for a career or trade. They choose not to adapt acceptable workplace habits (like coming to work regularly and on time, and getting on with co-workers). They choose to be lazy. They choose to ruin their health with alcohol or drugs or overeating. They choose to adopt a life of crime, etc, etc. One can argue that they are a product of their culture, and not to blame for their condition, and that may even be true. But it begs the question of what reciprocal responsibilities they owe to the taxpayers who provide them with help.

This is an interesting question, with no obvious easy answers. But it needs to be asked, especially as the debate turns to what entitlements we need to reduce, and how.