Econ 101.06

Of course, the fact that people oftentimes make bad choices is not a reason not to help them.  Imagine a parent telling their one-year-old, “Theodore, the last time you had dinner you threw your bowl on the floor—and also the previous twenty times.  So no more dinners for you.  From now on, you find your own food.”

Obviously, this is ridiculous—and it’s a little less ridiculous when applied to adults.  But still, one shouldn’t simply say to someone who uses (say) their unemployment benefits to buy (say) the oxytocin* to which they’re addicted, “John Doe, the last time you had these benefits you used them for something which does you no lasting good—and also the previous twenty times.  So no more benefits for you.  From now on, you support yourself.”

But on the other hand, neither does one say to the flailing child, “Theodore, dear, since you keep throwing your food, Mama and Daddy will keep cleaning it up  Lucky you!”  *eyeroll*  No, one takes other measures—for instance, one returns to spoon feeding for a while, or gives the child only a few bites at a time, or waits until they’re really hungry to feed them.  All of these things are more painful and difficult—in the short term—for the parents, but they do keep the floors marginally cleaner and—and this is the really critical point—they teach the child to appreciate his food, and treat it with respect—in other words, they help the child grow up.

Likewise, simply continuing the welfare benefits of someone who routinely uses them for things not in their own best interest is—while sometimes inevitable, and kindly meant—less helpful than determining ways to help people that also help them to become all they can be.

* Come to think of it, I don’t know how feasible that is; but that sort of thing.