Is Welfare Beneficial?
Overview
What, if anything, do we owe to each other? Do systems of redistribution help those who receive them or enslave those who pay into them? Do we have a right to assistance?
Read
Walzer
Notes on Walzer
Murray
Notes on Murray
Complete
Contribute your original (first) post and your peer reply to the Welfare Forum. (See below for a sample.)
Write your Welfare Case Analysis
Here is a former student’s Welfare Forum post. It’s a good sample. The student found an interesting Op-Ed piece, gave a brief analysis of the piece, and applied the same concepts from Murray and Walzer.
Here Links to an external site.is the original article associated with this sample
“The End of Welfare as we know it”
In the article, it gives the consequences of ending welfare to families and individuals in need of welfare. As of 2016, the motion to get rid of welfare is looking to be successful as many people are already losing their welfare. I agree that there should be a time limit to how long a person can use welfare when they are out of work and not volunteering because in my opinion, as an individual, you need to be actively working to better yourself. However, for state-by-state governments, there needs to be a more directed way to spend money on their welfare. By that, I mean that the government should analyze what the people in the state need most and act accordingly.
The numbers of those who have to drop welfare in the articles are astonishing. For example, the article states that in Arkansas, the number of welfare recipients went from 63,000 in 1995 to 9,901 in 2015. The article delves into different states and the status of welfare recipients in their respective states. Many of the government believe that those who can’t find a job; can always volunteer to receive welfare. But for some states, the volunteer places may require travel fees, work equipment, etc, all of which would require money. The states need to analyze what the people need most and act accordingly by distributing the money for welfare or increasing the time limit.
Murray would agree with the decisions of the state to start to create a stronger limit on welfare; however, he would advocate for the removal of welfare for the same reason. Though, the states seem to be unable to completely remove welfare; the states want to head in that direction as the amount of those receiving less welfare looks appealing. Murray observes the time limit would help lessen the net harm that he writes about in Law 3. However, Walzer would argue that there needs to be a membership made by the exchange of welfare for those in need. If Walzer were to look at the piece he would argue with the state that they have a moral right to help those who are starving and stop creating a time limit that may leave many starving people.
