Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Not Really Free

Entry 2108, on 2021-02-15 at 20:44:41 (Rating 3, Comments)

I recently received an email from a friend which included the following musings: "A current theme is about opening all museum exhibitions at no charge ... My belief is that we should try to help children in lower classes to be educated in general ... Work at the top of the cliff and no ambulance at the bottom ... Then whilst on the socialist page, what is the general feelings about total free health care for everyone? I am in a left wing mood today."

I replied with some comments, including these: "No charge is not the same as no cost. Someone has to pay. Don't you believe in user pays? (I am in a right wing mood today) ... Again, nothing is free."

I wasn't entirely serious, because I don't think user pays is the best strategy in every case, but the point about nothing being truly free is a reasonable one, I think.

Because nothing ever is really free. Museums and healthcare systems cost a lot to set up and run. If we didn't require the visitors/patients to pay then someone else has to, and we might ask at that point whether that is fair. Why should one person pay for another to go to a museum, or even have a health problem treated?

Actually, I can answer that question myself. We should provide free services - or more accurately services paid for by the government which ultimately gets back to money from the taxpayer - because that makes society better. Looking at the big picture, even those paying for the benefits to others might lose some extra money in taxes, but they gain in having a better society.

For example, in the stories of famous scientists there are often references to visits to places like museums triggering their interest in science. And they might have then gone on to become professional scientists and discovered something of great value to society.

Or we might spend money on helping a sick person before their condition gets a lot worse and costs ten times that amount to fix, or before they die and we lose all the investments (education, etc) that society made in them.

Those are all practical points, but there's another class of answer too. That is that we should want to help our fellow citizens and we shouldn't begrudge them a few basic services which might improve their lives, while making only a minimal difference to our own (assuming the "our" here refers to "productive" members of society who pay taxes).

So this is a sort of welfare state argument, and we know how much money is often wasted in those types of political systems. Sure, that is true for many welfare payments, but I think there are some things which we should all reasonably expect might be provided in some way, and that might possibly be through welfare.

I think health is a clear case where this is justified, but museum visits less so, although large parts of many museums are free to visit, and it is often ony special exhibits which have an associated charge. So some museum services are already free. Surely it would not cost a lot more to make them all free.

But, what are the alternatives to welfare?

Well, we could just say that the poor should just stop being so lazy, get a good job, and make enough money so that they can live with a reasonable level of comfort, like the rest of us, without relying on welfare.

There is undoubtedly a proportion of the poor in society who are lazy and useless, and it can be difficult to feel much sympathy for them. But if a parent (and it usually is a single parent) is too lazy to get a good job is it fair to hand that disadvantage onto that person's children? Maybe not. Maybe if the children were given a bit of well targeted help they might become bigger contributors to society than their parents.

Another alternative might be a guaranteed minimum income, or universal basic income, or negative tax. This would mean everyone is given enough to live on, and anything beyond that must be earned. All other forms of welfare could (theoretically, at least) be eliminated.

In theory this would remove all major forms of disadvantage, because people would have enough to cover items such as their health costs, and a few visits to a museum. I would also suggest it should cover housing and food.

Of course, someone else is paying again, but at least they get something back too, because this would be universal. I have seen various costings for a scheme like this, and some end up costing less than the welfare systems they replace, as well as having the advantage of having far less associated bureaucracy, but it might also be very costly, depending on the initial assumptions and the level of payments.

One of the big problems with discussions on topics like these is the same problem I see in other discussions: people are polarised. One side says people are poor because they are lazy and unmotivated. They say these people make no effort to help themselves so in what way do they deserve help from others who have made some effort.

And on the other side, people say that the poor are poor because they have been repressed by society, or started life in a situation which they couldn't escape, or just didn't have any luck. These people might just need a little bit of help to assist them into becoming more productive and useful.

Of course, both of these opinions are right and both are wrong. There are cases where both of those circumstances prevail. Some people really do try but just can't get ahead because of circumstances beyond their control. Others really do rely on welfare and have no intention of making a contribution to society, because they just don't have to.

I say, let's just forget that argument and think about what sort of society we would like. Do we want people living on the street or in a car? Do we want children from poor families starting with a significant disadvantage to others? Do we want people dying from preventable diseases which can't be treated because of insufficient health budgets?

Most people would say "no", at least as an initial reaction to these questions. They might go on to say that it is an unfortunate reality that these problems exist, but we can't fix everything because we don't have an unlimited budget to do it. Well, fair enough, but let's start with the observation that those problems need to be fixed. We agree? OK, now we can look for solutions.

Finally, there is one last point I should cover. That is, even if admission to museums was free, or every family received an income sufficient to pay the entry fee, would they go? What percentage of people would want to go to a museum, and what percentage would prefer to spend time watching TV or using TikTok on their phone? Call me cynical if you wish, but I suspect very few would make the choice of the museum, even if there was no cost involved. Maybe I'm wrong, but the superficiality of modern society makes me think I'm not.

Are free museums a good idea? Well, maybe. If some visitors are inspired to get interested in a new subject and that leads to a new career, then that's cool. Is free health-care, housing, and food a good idea? It might be. In the future when automation eliminates most jobs, it might be essential. But none of this is really free.

Comment 1 (6363) by Anonymous on 2021-03-03 at 12:12:16:

Another condescending rant from you. Your opinion of other people seems very bad.

Comment 2 (6371) by OJB on 2021-03-05 at 12:50:01:

Well, I just say what I honestly think. If that is condescending, or insulting, or triggering in some other way, then I say this: either get over it, or show me where I'm wrong.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.