Gerhard Stoltz's Library tagged politics →  View Popular

The New Poor Law was an outrage, forcing the indigent and the unemployed to choose between work at any wage, however low, and the humiliation of the workhouse. Here and in most other forms of nineteenth-century public assistance (still thought of and described as "charity"), the level of aid and support was calibrated so as to be less appealing than the worst available alternative. This system drew on classical economic theories that denied the very possibility of unemployment in an efficient market: if wages fell low enough and there was no attractive alternative to work, everyone would find a job.

For just this reason, such public goods were inherently unattractive to private buyers unless offered at a steep discount. But when the state sells cheap, the public takes a loss. It has been calculated that, in the course of the Thatcher-era UK privatizations, the deliberately low price at which long-standing public assets were marketed to the private sector resulted in a net transfer of £14 billion from the taxpaying public to stockholders and other investors.

As in the eighteenth century, so today: by eviscerating the state's responsibilities and capacities, we have diminished its public standing. The outcome is "gated communities," in every sense of the word:

But what if we treated humiliation itself as a cost, a charge to society? What if we decided to "quantify" the harm done when people are shamed by their fellow citizens before receiving the mere necessities of life? In other words, what if we factored into our estimates of productivity, efficiency, or well-being the difference between a humiliating handout and a benefit as of right? We might conclude that the provision of universal social services, public health insurance, or subsidized public transportation was actually a cost-effective way to achieve our common objectives.

So it was a shock, but only for a minute, when I read an e-mail from NARAL on November 9, decrying the threat posed by the Stupak Amendment, yet offering no form of response other than to click on a button and help raise money. For what? To plead with the Democratic politicians who pro-choice organizations have already handed over millions of dollars?

Similar cuts were introduced in schools in Berlin, which, like the universities, are run down and urgently in need of financial assistance. The senate introduced new charges for parents (averaging up to 100 euro per year and child) for teaching materials.