Smokey backrooms. Exploiting poor people (whatever that means). I love it. Cutting programs comes along with that. Let's talk about welfare.
You're just like every other elitist who wants to cut welfare!
No. I am just like every other elitist who wants to reinvigorate mutual aid societies.
Mutual Aid? What's that?
I've alluded to this in previous posts. Mutual aid is a process whereby people of generally limited financial means pool together resources to purchase services that are accessible to a group. So, person A can't afford to pay a doctor and person B can't afford to pay a doctor, but person A, B, C, D, and E can afford to pay for a window of access to a doctor for each person. These sorts of schemes eventually brought people together and inspired them to create "mutual aid" societies. The first recorded of these societies was found in Tang Dyansty China. Over one thousand years ago. In medieval times, guilds often served the purpose of mutual aid. The organizations are generally tied to trade unionization, minority and immigrant groups, religious organizations, and the working poor.
In the US and Britain, these societies gained prominence beginning in the 19th century. In the US these societies were called "lodges" or "fraternal organizations." in Britain, they were called "friendly societies" or "friendlies"Some examples include the Freemasons, Independent Order of the Foresters, and the Free African Society of Philadelphia.
In addition to helping members provide services like medical insurance and child care, these places also served as meeting grounds and helped connect and build communities. They were an integral part in the life of working-class and middle-class people in the 19th and early 20th century. They helped more people of limited means than government-funded almshouses and debtor's prisons.
They were robust and competitive in providing these services, and all based on the principle of self-help, meaning the members would contribute what they could when they could. They were distinct from charities, however. But charities also operated very efficiently during the same period that mutual aid societies were significant in the West.
Another important aspect of these organizations is that they were owned and run by their members. Everyone had a say in operations (ie. the members would vote on decisions like who the new lodge doctor would be, rates to charge or how they would admit new members, etc). They were also very important for integrating minorities and immigrants into society and in helping people overcome occupational prejudice.
Al in all, these organizations were wonderful for the working poor, an helped provide a robust safety net in an apparently dog-eat-dog society. So what does the government do? Destroy them, of course.
Of course? You act like the government is out to get you and everyone else.
I'm white and domestic. The government isn't out to get me. At least not during the times it started federal welfare programs.
By providing welfare services through the state, politicians realize they can buy votes. Additionally, destroying mutual aid societies works to weaken the status of workers and makes voters more dependent on voting in order to receive benefits. It also weakened minorities' ability to succeed and advance in society.
And the economic impacts of a chronically poor population that faces counter-productive incentives and the massive administrative nightmare that was installed to redistribute the wealth created by the market? Obviously not good. I don't feel I need to get into them, as they're littered all over the internet.
I will say that welfare needs to end and people ought to know more about the free market alternatives.
What do the dogs have to do with it?
Lodges served as social gathering places. Each card is a social gathering and each poker chip represents services provided by the fraternal societies. The lodge leadership made a bet with the government as lost and now we have what we have now.
No comments:
Post a Comment