The so-called welfare state is a new phrase for an old theory of government under which planners or Government Officials, as the case may be, assume complete responsibility for the material welfare of the people. The actions of the government in the material sphere naturally affect the other aspects (vital as they are in many cases) of human life. Welfare has to balance the basic ideas that will never be at ease with one another—property vs equality. Each of those incompatible ideas stem out of the implementation of welfarism without regard to the sacrifice of both these ideas, namely, liberty and property. The evolution of human life is consistently the idea of guaranteeing first, a right to life; secondly to liberty; thirdly to property.
The Welfarists destroy property by guaranteeing rights to life and liberty. But in the process of securing welfare to the masses, they withhold liberty against the promised guarantee of plenty to the community. The issue is profound because it sticks by man’s conception and feeling of dignity. It is clearly not the duty of government to take a measure of freedom from one person to enhance the freedom of another. The myth of welfarism largely consists in the liberal guarantee of the welfarists to make possible for everyone to be completely free at the same time.
The essence of the welfare state which the equalitarians have developed is quite a paradox. The federal units single out special groups for unequal treatment under law—agriculturist, factory workers, consumers—in order to keep the various segments, of the country’s population in rough balance. As the federal units push forward these groups, the centre pulls back others.
Practical alternative to welfare state
Welfare is an end by itself and not a means to an end. Welfarists in India, are not only concerned with the attainment of this end, but also advocate drastic policies which, in their opinion, lead to Welfare State. Their suggestions will wither and deaden the average citizen’s sense of participation and partnership in governmental affairs. They forget that this citizen participation is largely responsible in strengthening democracy.
The practical alternative to the Welfare State is not something called laissez-faire or rugged individualism, or any of the other hackneyed phrases for capitalism. I am inclined to call the alternative the free economy if—we did not distract the objective connotations which the word ‘Free’ has come to have.
In so far as security must be one objective of the good society, the practical alternative to the Welfare State should be of securing a situation wherein welfare devices such as productivity, excellence, creativeness, adventure, dignity, and the chance to take a chance, are effectively guarded and promoted. Such a society relies not on government but on organisation promoted by the people themselves. Thus when people are not restrained to experiment with their own forms of association for mutual aid true welfarism emerges.
I am not here figuring a society without a government. Far be from me. The government has a defined role in securing general welfare such as public works, conservation which cannot always be promoted on a large and efficient scale by voluntary private organisations. I would like to emphasise that welfare on a self-reliant basis is not a vague utopian hope but a very practical thing, the realisation of which largely depends on the experimentative spirit of the people, and government on a limited basis.
Also read: Violent class-war doctrines of Marx became the sole saviour of labour: MA Venkata Rao
Social prestige at stake
The free economy produces true welfare of the masses, as it adheres firmly to the following two principles:
- “Whenever the welfare of a community requires a common action, the unity of that common action must be assured by higher organs of the community.”
- “Whenever a task can be satisfactorily achieved by the initiative of the individual and that of small social units, the fulfilment of that task must be left to the initiative of the individual or that of the small social units.” Because the vitality of free society does not come from the gifts of a ruling group at the top.
The Welfarists in India want the government to launch Welfare programmes and carry them out in utter disregard to the wishes of the people. A Welfare State grows out of mutual co-operation and spontaneity and not through measures thrust forcibly upon the masses and carried out by mere compulsion or sheer violence. Then democracy disappears and in its place totalitarianism and dictatorship reign supreme.
The individual dignity and social prestige are then at stake. We cannot establish a good society simply by a series of uncorrelated measures pushed through by pressure. A good society abhors those welfare measures which involve a denial of personality and an abrogation of responsibility. The welfarism secured in a free economy is bound to last longer since the two ideas of authority and administration of authority are divorced by the allowance of spontaneity in the public life of the country, and reconciled successfully by the preservation of individual dignity and liberty.
The anarchy of totalitarianism is bound to come to an end from its own instability and grave lack of logical unity. But once fostered, retreat from totalitarianism is cent per cent impracticable. There is no hope of restoring democracy, of reviving liberty; the destination of totalitarian government being ultimate destruction of liberty and individual dignity. Men intoxicated with power will never voluntarily surrender the power to spend the money of other people in the name of welfare and general well being. Life always has been, and always will be, something of the nature of a race. But there is not much fun in taking part in or in watching a race where in advance the Umpires impose handicaps which will effectively ensure that all the competitors will arrive simultaneously at the winning post. And it is not I, but Alexander Gray, who says so. Now, are you willing to participate in such a race or prefer one in which your ability to run is recognised and rewarded?
This essay is part of a series from the Indian Liberals archive, a project of the Centre for Civil Society. This essay is excerpted from a journal published by “The Indian Libertarian”, published in March 1959. The original version can be accessed on this link.