15. “Is There a ‘Libertarian’ Justification of the Welfare State? A Critique of James P. Sterba”
by James Rolph Edwards
Abstract: James P. Sterba postulates a conflict situation between ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ persons in order to establish the legitimacy of a welfare right superior to unlimited private property rights. Sterba does not recognize the moral options available to the non-poor in his conflict scenario, nor the generally voluntary character of enduring unemployment, or how few people would satisfy his own restrictive criteria for poverty. His definition mischaracterizes the general state of the poor as one of imminent decline when in fact, for most of human history it was one of stasis, and since comparatively free societies emerged, it has been one of general improvement. He fails to grasp that the processes by which others become non-poor in a libertarian society also make most of the poor better off. Consequently, consideration of future generations also turns out to weigh heavily against justification of a welfare right, contrary to Sterba’s claim.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
Is there any need of stirring the same old expectorations again and again? Nothing new?
The trouble is that we are still stuck with the welfare state, and much else besides. Should we give up the fight against it?
I say that we carry on the battle no matter how long it takes or what arduous campaigns we must undertake, or how many times we must repeat ourselves.
Ahhhh…..the work of the Libertarian is never done. But life is like that. It’s dynamic, not static, ever changing and shifting, and Libertarians know that they must not oppose this creative destruction.
As Mises(echoing Heraclitus) put it, “Change and transformation are essential features of life.” (The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, p. 106).
There are always going to be intellectual rascals with whom we must do combat, the status quo, the vested interests, the intellectually stagnant, and we must rise to the occasion whenever called upon.
Fortunately, Libertarianism is the little engine that never rests and never fails.
Is “Libertarian Papers” the place to fight wars of propaganda or enlightenment to educate the backward statists (which is a most important and demanding job to do, no doubt)? Isn’t it rather the forum to discuss intellectual problems from within the libertarian, anarchocapitalist or private-law-society sphere of thought? And isn’t refutation of welfare-state and state as such a notion broadly agreed upon in these circles? I do not oppose patiently repeating and campaigning the same old refutations of statism in their place, but here in LP I want to read what’s new, challenging or eye-opening for people like us, e.g. my “Missing Link” on self-ownership.net or concerning arguments.
Thanks for the explanation. I think I misunderstood you. My apologies.
This is excellent analysis.
As Mr. Edwards makes very clear, there simply is no justification for the welfare state, “Libertarian,” or otherwise.
A few things puzzle me, though.
If the welfare state is such an obvious failure, how did it all come to this?
How has it grown to such monstrous dimensions?
Why has opposition to it been so weak as to allow it to flourish this way?
Can it be reigned in in the context of the current political system of the US?
More to the point, can it be eliminated without resort to Libertarian principles?