The free-rider problem

[the Left™]

My mom is some annoying health care bureaucrat that talks about how programs for the poor incentivize people to just accept the benefits and not improve their situation. I was arguing with her about homeless and unemployed, about how 6 months on some unemployment assistance in Britain, about TANF etc and how they offer a small window to escape a structural problem that has no time window for a solution. She offers the usual slippery slope that once you offer aid and programs you just let people become free-riders...

what do you guys think?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Bull crap, most people of the working class are financially unable to change their situation.Just tell her that if you are barely able to make 'ends meet' than you aren't likely to raise in social stature any time soon.I firmly believe that most people would actively peruse "betterment" if they had the means to.

[the Left™]

Bull crap, most people of the working class are financially unable to change their situation.Just tell her that if you are barely able to make 'ends meet' than you aren't likely to raise in social stature any time soon.I firmly believe that most people would actively peruse "betterment" if they had the means to.

Yes that what i tell her but this mentality is so pervasive

[OHumanista]

Bull crap, most people of the working class are financially unable to change their situation.Just tell her that if you are barely able to make 'ends meet' than you aren't likely to raise in social stature any time soon.I firmly believe that most people would actively peruse "betterment" if they had the means to.

Exactly, most sane persons actively seek ways to improve their lives(as opposed to "enjoying" beingt poor). Most people who depend on such services don't have the chance to do so. "Free-riders" are a tiny minority at best, and they would be who they are regardless of how many benefits they have access to.

[Conscript]

Since benefits are usually an income a fraction the size of what a wage would bring (they have to be), it certainly isn't an incentive to not get a job. Even benefits that pay your old wage pale in comparison to actually having a job because you can sustain yourself for much longer on the job market, at least longer than 6 months.

[Black_Rose]

I think the biggest problem in any society are psychopaths.

The psychopath problem concerns me more than the free rider problem. How does a socialist society prevent psychopaths from attaining political and economic power?


Yes that what i tell her but this mentality is so pervasive

During a socialist revolution, we need to purge a few people with this mentality, preferably in public, like in a struggle session. We need to show that we are not going to tolerate this attitude. Using force is necessary in order for the threat of force to be perceived as credible; it conveys that we are morally capable of using force, even though we might be averse to invoking physical force.

I am not entirely like Robespierre, but I believe it is necessary that few people who harbor reactionary attitudes need to be made examples of before we can cultivate an environment of socialist virtue. This is an integral feature in the catabolism of a socialist revolution.

BTW, aren't the wealthy the bigger parasites than the poor on welfare? The poor suffer miserable lives full of despair. Socialism at its essence is an expression of mercy for the exploited victims of capitalism, but those reactionary attitudes are pernicious since they preclude mercy.

[PhilosophyGreg]

BLACK ROSE, whoa, I'm pretty sure "We'll murder them in public" isn't the answer "Icanhazclasswar" wants to give his mum

[Blake's Baby]

No, the free-rider problem is real. Some people do become 'welfare dependent'.

Why? Because, I would argue, our system (both overtly political and more generally our social conditioning) tells us we are weak and isolated and have no power to change things. We are told that other people must solve our problems for us.

Socialism however is predicated on a radical engagement with society. There will be no welfare state to look after us, we are the state and we need to look after ourselves. So yeah, a problem for social democracy (aka, paternalistic welfare capitalism) but not for socialism.

[Metacomet]

I think the biggest problem in any society are psychopaths.

The psychopath problem concerns me more than the free rider problem. How does a socialist society prevent psychopaths from attaining political and economic power?



During a socialist revolution, we need to purge a few people with this mentality, preferably in public, like in a struggle session. We need to show that we are not going to tolerate this attitude. Using force is necessary in order for the threat of force to be perceived as credible; it conveys that we are morally capable of using force, even though we might be averse to invoking physical force.

I am not entirely like Robespierre, but I believe it is necessary that few people who harbor reactionary attitudes need to be made examples of before we can cultivate an environment of socialist virtue. This is an integral feature in the catabolism of a socialist revolution.

BTW, aren't the wealthy the bigger parasites than the poor on welfare? The poor suffer miserable lives full of despair. Socialism at its essence is an expression of mercy for the exploited victims of capitalism, but those reactionary attitudes are pernicious since they preclude mercy.

How do you like to do it? I'm a firing squad man myself.:rolleyes:

[Black_Rose]

How do you like to do it? I'm a firing squad man myself.:rolleyes:

My support for the use of force on certain reactionary elements is not derived from the primal, irrational emotions of revenge, sadism, or a desire for punitive measures on political enemies; it is based on an understanding of game theory.

*I'm referring to political crimes and crimes against the state, not typical crimes such as fraud, larceny, murder, drug trafficking, smuggling,assault, committed against citizens with little impact on the state's operations. One legitimate function of the state is to protect citizens from individuals who harm them physically or materially (in this case, since no one can collect rents by owning private property in a socialist regime, material harm would be defined as damaging one's property whose "owners" has the intention to personally consume or use, or an object, by definition cannot be a commodity, of priceless sentimental value.) Although I didn't study criminal justice, I would guess that most property and physical crimes, especially those committed by the underclass, are not motivated by a rational analysis of incentives and punishments, thus deterrence measures would be less effective.

I do believe that sometimes the threat of force is necessary as a deterrent, primarily as a deterrent against reaction attitudes and resistance to the socialist agenda; in order for the threat of force to appear credible, force has to be exercised as a demonstration that we are willing to use it. I do believe there is a nuanced distinction of using force as a means, primarily to deter dissent and actions that obstruct the goals of a socialist state, instead of an end in itself where the physical liquidation of dissenters is the objective.

[Buttress]

It can be difficult, degrading and downright depressing to seek employment and to work in wage-based jobs. It's pretty obvious that some free-riders are lazy but there is something deeper involved as to why this attitude continues to exist. Laziness is also a sign of inadequacy, of a lack of confidence in oneself or one's work.

[Buttress]

During a socialist revolution, we need to purge a few people with this mentality, preferably in public, like in a struggle session. We need to show that we are not going to tolerate this attitude. Using force is necessary in order for the threat of force to be perceived as credible; it conveys that we are morally capable of using force, even though we might be averse to invoking physical force.

Completely unnecessary if a socialist revolution comes around. The vast majority will want to work and contribute to society. Killing off a tiny minority of free-riders is not only pointless but barbaric. An instantly corrupt state?

[Black_Rose]

Completely unnecessary if a socialist revolution comes around. The vast majority will want to work and contribute to society. Killing off a tiny minority of free-riders is not only pointless but barbaric. An instantly corrupt state?

I never suggested killing "free-riders"; I said that we should kill some people who possess "this mentality", which refers to the belief that social welfare programs "incentivizes" the working class to live indolent, parasitic lives. Furthermore, I am not inferring that the "free-riders" in a capitalist society would be "free-riders" in a socialist society, although my post did imply that psychopaths in a capitalist society would also be psychopaths in a socialist society. (I never suggested liquidating psychopaths, unless they are effective promulgators of reactionary ideology, but merely restrict their political influence and means that they can harm others.) You said it aptly that laziness is not indicative of a character flaw but may reflect an underlying malady of the economic system that leads the working class to adopt a mentality of despair since they realize that they cannot advance socially and economically through hard work or the realization that their work only enriches a minority of shareholders.


It can be difficult, degrading and downright depressing to seek employment and to work in wage-based jobs. It's pretty obvious that some free-riders are lazy but there is something deeper involved as to why this attitude continues to exist. Laziness is also a sign of inadequacy, of a lack of confidence in oneself or one's work.

Under much introspection, I asked myself "what made me a revolutionary socialist and what differentiates me from 'reactionaries'?" My answer: my conviction to the cause of revolution ultimately emanates from an edifice of sympathy*, amity, mercy, and benevolence towards the working class.

Now ask yourself if a socialist society can foster an environment of "sympathy, amity, mercy, and benevolence" if the mentality that the poor deserve their inferior economic status because they lack individual initiative, lack physical or intellectual ability, are not obsequious enough in the presence of their economic superiors, accept and consume resources from social welfare programs is ubiquitous.


* I am an autistic female. I said "sympathy" because I have a diminished capacity to experience "empathy"; empathy may be a relevant emotion, but it seems sympathy is satisfactory too.

[Decommissioner]

Under socialism we will all become "free riders" over certain periods of our lifetimes.

The point of socialism is we wont spend our entire lives working, but engaging in labor of the things we actually want to do. We already live in a system of overproduction under capitalism. With a socialist world of an educated and ready to work populace, it would be ridiculous for everyone to perform necessary labor for even a fraction of the amount workers are forced to work today under capitalism.

With that in mind, a lot of people will be housed for free and offered free healthcare during times where they aren't working (because their labor would be superfluous and unnecessary).

[danyboy27]

Welfare is a method to pacify the poor and the underclass so yea, people can get dependent on this system.

In my province if you get on the welfare for a while (2 year) you are entitled to dental benefits and eyeglasses are paid has well, you also got Priority if you want to live in a governement housing project.

Its kindof hard to argues with someone who have all this to go break his back for a minimum wage job without any benefits.

In the meantime, corporations can keep treating worker like shit beccause the unemployed and the poor receive just enough benefit to keep quiet.

Dont get me wrong, Welfare programs are great, its the way its currently used by the elites that is truly sickening.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've always thought that people ask the wrong questions on this topic. If you genuinely believe that the meagre pittance you get on welfare is enough to encourage people to live a live of idle poverty, then your question shouldn't be what is wrong with those people, but what is wrong with the alternatives that are offered to them that they should prefer as miserable an existence as that.

Such criticism as ICHCW's mother makes are bourgeois in the most literal sense of the word: they are criticisms constructed from the perspective of the capitalist class, a perspective which assumes not merely the inevitability but indeed the benevolence of their mode of production and their organisational structures, which assumes that labour is a resource to be shaped as is necessary to meet the needs of capital. The idea that the working poor, or indeed workers of any station, might actually be human beings, with opinions and interests of their own, is entirely peripheral to its construction. Industry is not there to accommodate humanity, humanity is there to accommodate industry. And that is why are going to tear this shit down.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think the biggest problem in any society are psychopaths.

The psychopath problem concerns me more than the free rider problem. How does a socialist society prevent psychopaths from attaining political and economic power?



During a socialist revolution, we need to purge a few people with this mentality, preferably in public, like in a struggle session. We need to show that we are not going to tolerate this attitude. Using force is necessary in order for the threat of force to be perceived as credible; it conveys that we are morally capable of using force, even though we might be averse to invoking physical force.

I am not entirely like Robespierre, but I believe it is necessary that few people who harbor reactionary attitudes need to be made examples of before we can cultivate an environment of socialist virtue. This is an integral feature in the catabolism of a socialist revolution.


WOAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH another one of these people

No, lets not go out and kill people mmkay? Thanks brah.

[Meridian]

My support for the use of force on certain reactionary elements is not derived from the primal, irrational emotions of revenge, sadism, or a desire for punitive measures on political enemies; it is based on an understanding of game theory.

I see your interesting game theory and offer my alternative theory: People will raise the fuck up if some random group starts executing people (especially working class people) during/after revolution, and it will backlash hard against them, and perhaps the entire goal of the revolution will be lost.