David writes "To the extent that the government assumes roles
traditionally assumed by the family, the family will stop performing
those roles and the family will be weakened."
This reflects a fundamental weakness in Shemano's historical knowledge.
Traditionally the family has not been the nuclear family that he
identifies. My recent research has been amongst the Northwest Coast
aboriginals (in particular the Nuu Chah Nulth of westcoast Vancouver
Island.) The economic unit of production, consumption and
redistribution was the household -- but the household included a chief,
his brothers and sisters or relevant in-laws, fathers and mothers, aunts
and uncles, children and children-in-laws, cousins, nephews and nieces
and whatever other distant relations who wished to join the household.
Under the nobel ranks were many (extended) families of commoners who
claimed rights to the family through ancestral decent from a common
ancestor. Since there was so much intermarriage between households and
between different 'tribes' (or groups of households) virtually anyone
could claim membership in any particular house.
The 'house' therefore became the unit of social security though
other households in the same village or other villages and tribes would
come to a household'a or village's rescue in the case of natural
calamity. Although property rights were allocated among the members of
the household and between households, some part of all production was
rendered to the chief, not for his consumption or that of his immediate
family, but for redistribution to all members of the household, nobels
and commoners (and even slaves where there were some).
Now what can we derive from this. Contrary to Shemano's
a-historical take, the family (household) augmented by the village
(society/state) and the tribe (nation/state) provided a level of social
security and redistribution at the level of the community and state, not
at the level of the nuclear family. He is simply wrong. The nuclear
family that he champions is the creation of Becker-arian neoclassical
economics (i.e. a myth).
Moreover, in empirical economics, it has proven to be quite wrong.
Take for instance the hypothesis that is drawn from this misconception
of economic behaviour -- the permanent income hypothesis. The fact of
the matter is that as people age they tend to save more, contrary to the
permanent income hypothesis. Why? To pass on to their children and
grandchildren. Social security (or in our case, CPP) allows the elderly
to save more to pass on to their children. That is, SS and CPP prompt
us to save more, not less.
So, not only is David's concept of family all wrong, but also his
interpretation of economic behaviour faulty. It all originates in his
acceptance of the Smithian homo eoconomicus as the basis of economic
behaviour. It just ain't so.
Just as a final note, we have a circle of friends who often offer
to look after our pets or property, or help with any job we need done,
without compensation and without any quid pro quo. We do the same for
friends, neighbours, or even strangers who ask for help. As we joke
among ouselves, our offers of help are (to use the fancy anthropogical
term), 'generalized
reciprocity'. We don't expect or demand a return but we are reasonably
sure that when we are in need, help will come. This is the true meaning
of the biblical injunction "cast your bread upon the water and it will
return to you." This is also the basis of social security and social
prograns that so define Canadian society.
Paul Phillips
dshemano wrote:
I do not understand how these posts are responsive to my point. From my
perspective, they confuse the fundamental issue, which is what is the
appropriate role for the family and what is the appropriate role for the
government. To the extent that the government assumes roles traditionally
assumed by the family, the family will stop performing those roles and the
family will be weakened. I am sure that there are those who think that would
be a good result, but I do not.
Let me try a different tact. From a technical perspective, social security is a ponzi scheme.
People pay in and "invest" in nothing more than the hope that there will be future
workers who will pay in to the system, who will similarly "invest" in the same hope.
However, can we not agree that there is a population problem in all countries with developed
welfare states? Western Europe is not reproducing itself and therefore finds itself in need of
immigrants to pay the taxes to finance current benefits. At a certain point, the game, like all
ponzi schemes, is going to be up. I would add that a significant reason for the population problem
is precisely because the welfare state is a disincentive for children (why have children when the
state will pay for your retirement).
David Shemano
