THE BASIS FOR SOCIAL SUPPORTS

I've been thinking a lot recently about social supports (health care, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, etc.) and how one would justify them given the underlying philosophy of a free-market system. To begin, I have to assume our Western culture. People don't intrinsically feel the connection between individuals as part of a greater whole, and I do believe our society would be organized very differently and the culture that causes it would not necessitate many of things that I currently feel is necessary. Fundamentally, the idea of money and a free-market would be unnecessary and silly if we all instead chose to work as part of a group or community. However, assuming our culture and our current legal system, I have come around to question how would I support the idea that social supports are necessary, given that the free-market system is philosophically based on the idea that everyone should succeed as far as their motivation and skills allow. My desire would be to build social supports that maintain this idea, that doesn't thwart an individuals motivation and ability while making it easier for those who aren't born into a positive situation to succeed regardless.

Those born into poerty exist in a situation where a large amount of social and cultural forces weigh upon them. Amongst those, there are, of course, a few who possess extraordinary ability and drive to exit their situation. However, this is generally not the norm. If someone of rather average ability is born into a middle-class family, he or she would fare far better than that same person born into a lower-class or poverty stricken family. It is my belief, then, that the role of government in a free-market system is to make it as close as possible that people of equal ability and motivation achieve equal standing. Of course, this HIGHLY idealized, but that should be the goal. It is due to this that I ultimately believe in the concept of "free-market socialism."

From this philosophical basis, you can build supports for unemployment benefits, job training, welfare benefits, monopoly breakup, and health care, as all of these help the poor amongst us rise to the level of their ability. If a person is too poor to be able to afford college, then, if he has the ability to succeed in college, he should be able to go to college. Sickness and disease can occur to anyone, poor or rich, so why should becoming ill impact the poor more?

Obviously, I'm aware in reality that not all cultural forces can be overcome, and when practically implementing things of this nature, a balance must be struck between limiting those who already succeed compared to how much you want to help those who haven't. I am aware of these things, but before you implement any policy of this sort, you have to begin by understanding what you're trying to accomplish. Assuming our culture and legal system, that is what I would like to see accomplished by our government.