There is a strong theme that is common to many who propose government interventionist policies in society: social equality. They see the imbalances between classes and ethnic groups as a source of tension within a society. As a result, they employ either the force of government and/or economics to balance these injustices. This is typically known as welfare, although the same practices are applied under other schemes, grants and policies.

It is safe to say that the majority of people would, in principle, advocate social equality. There is a desire to help, rather than see people suffer. But who are 'they' that need help and what are their circumstances? What is the situation that demands social equality? To answer these questions, there is an important distinction to make between two groups of people:

1) The helpless

2) The unhelpable

The helpless represent those members of society that are simply incapable of helping themselves from poverty, abuse, homelessness, handicapped etc. These are situations where individuals cannot rise above, improve or even escape their standard of living without external support or intervention. This may immediately conjure images of homeless people living under bridges and beggars. They may also include the single mother working two jobs to support three children, who cannot escape the financial burden of their circumstance. Without intervention, a trend towards poverty seems inescapable. We can all agree that these are exactly the people who need help. This group is the key target of external intervention in order equalize their circumstance with the majority of the population.

The second group are the unhelpable. This category represents individuals who have the capability, faculties, resources and intelligence overcome any social or financial class or level that they rest upon. However, they voluntarily choose to remain at the standard of living they're at out of contentment, complacency, laziness or demotivation. In Australia they may include the 'doll bludgers'.

The welfare argument appears to be centered on the effective execution of social equality, the balance of welfare between the two groups and the extent of overlap tolerable by the majority. Conceptually, people and politicians want to help as many helpless people as possible through subsidies and grants, and of course welfare checks in the mail The opposition then typically cites the misapplication of welfare on the unhelpable, citing some recent anecdotal experience where an ungrateful lazy individual received numerous financial benefits, despite their full capability to go out and get a job to finance their standard of living. The opposition additionally cites that this individual has no motivation to stand on his own two feet because they are essentially getting free money from the government. This in turn puts pressure on the ruling government to promise effective welfare execution and the cycle continues

Outside of the context of traditional welfare, there is social class equality (i.e. low, middle, upper classism). The concern by many intellectuals, economists and politicians is that an increasing separation between these classes precedes societal breakdown or revolution; history supports this observation. The issue of distant class gaps creates an image of pre-revolutionary France under Louis XVI, the riots, societal decay and ultimately the executions. To avoid a similar fate in modern societies, the entire tax structure, subsidies, grants, schemes etc are shaped to ensure that the gap between the classes is minimal and easily traversable (hopefully easier to go up than down).

THE question: How do you give welfare to helpless people (the people that really need it) rather than waste resources on unhelpable people. And how do you keep gap between classes as small as possible?

I'll give you a hint... it's a trick question.

God bless,

Dr Washo