[anticlimacus]

Please provide an example of this ever happening, thanks.

The welfare state was established and legitimated after the Great Depression precisely as a response to economic crisis coupled with intense inequality as a product of unregulated capitalism. It has remained ever since in advanced capitalist countries, despite attempts to deconstruct it.

[Rothbardian]

The welfare state was established and legitimated after the Great Depression precisely as a response to economic crisis coupled with intense inequality as a product of unregulated capitalism. It has remained ever since in advanced capitalist countries, despite attempts to deconstruct it.

The welfare state was implemented by LBJ long after the great depression. His war on poverty, which was supposed to literally end poverty in the U.S., was part of his 'great society'. It did not come into effect because there was a public outcry for it, it came into being for political reasons.

FDR never got around to creating an actual welfare state. After his response to mass famine (which was to pay farmers to stop growing food and to bury cattle in mass graves) people probably wouldn't have gone for it.

[Eran]

The welfare state was established and legitimated after the Great Depression precisely as a response to economic crisis coupled with intense inequality as a product of unregulated capitalism. It has remained ever since in advanced capitalist countries, despite attempts to deconstruct it.

Moreover, the Great Depression, both in its causes and treatments was anything but unregulated capitalism. The Fed famously manipulated interest rates and money supply prior to and immediately after the 1929 crash.

More importantly, both Hoover and FDR engaged from the get-go in a series of increasingly deep interventions in the operations of the market. In addition to the destruction of agricultural products mentioned by Rothbardian, we saw a concerted policy for keeping wages up (
exacerbating unemployment) and persecution of business people, a policy which managed to extend the initial crisis for a decade.

[anticlimacus]

The welfare state was implemented by LBJ long after the great depression. His war on poverty, which was supposed to literally end poverty in the U.S., was part of his 'great society'. It did not come into effect because there was a public outcry for it, it came into being for political reasons.

FDR never got around to creating an actual welfare state. After his response to mass famine (which was to pay farmers to stop growing food and to bury cattle in mass graves) people probably wouldn't have gone for it.

Nonsense. FDR was heavily involved in creating government programs to help alleviate poverty, support the unemployed, the elderly, and struggling families. Many of the policies failed or were simply abandoned, but some still exist today (AFDC, unemployment compensation, Social Security).

[Rainbow Crow]

I think that people are always going to be striving for something better, so where there are negative liberties or negative rights established, it follows that seeking positive rights will come after that.

The problem of course is that one person's positive rights is another person's forced labor. I am big on negative rights though and think they should be expanded. We would benefit from a "right to not have to listen" so as to end this constant assault of manipulative advertisements that are likely a big part of why people choose to buy things instead of having more children.

[Eran]

I think that people are always going to be striving for something better, so where there are negative liberties or negative rights established, it follows that seeking positive rights will come after that.

Maybe.

But by the same token, people are (usually) striving to push their religious beliefs on others. At least they did until a few hundred years ago, typically using the machinery of government to do just that.

Yet changes in political philosophy excluded religion from the scope of activities considered legitimate by government.

Similarly, people naturally thrive to advance their kin at the expense of foreigners. This natural tendency manifested itself as xenophobia and racism, typically reflected in government policies.

Yet changes in political philosophy today exclude explicitly-racist policies from being considered legitimate by government.

[Rothbardian]

Nonsense. FDR was heavily involved in creating government programs to help alleviate poverty, support the unemployed, the elderly, and struggling families. Many of the policies failed or were simply abandoned, but some still exist today (AFDC, unemployment compensation, Social Security).

FDR did indeed create a plethora of government programs, all of which were astounding failures. But it was LBJ that gave us the welfare state. FDR made an attempt, but wasn't able to make it stick.

Anyway even in FDR's case, your claim is not accurate. FDR was voted in on promises of drastic reductions in government spending and activity. There was never a public outcry for the government to do more, even in the case of FDR.

FDR won by promising enormous spending cuts, something like 30% if memory serves.

Sort of like LBJ promising his great society would literally end poverty. Using the government to try to solve a problem will always give you more of the problem.

[anticlimacus]

FDR made an attempt, but wasn't able to make it stick.

Not really. As I mentioned there were several major Federal programs that began with FDR that did stick. Most importantly FDR's administration was the major precident for not only Keynsian government inolvement in the economy, but for the production of social programs both for the support of basic living standards and to sustain a certain level of economic growth within capitalistic society. This did not end with FDR, but it continued through the 50s and 60s nd to this day. The LBJ administration was not the beginning of the welfare state, but a continuation of it. Europe is similar in this respect as they too greatly expanded their welfare states through the 50s and 60s after WWII and rebuilding.

Of course there is no single time where it all fell from the sky as a perfect whole. There were state programs before and after the Great Depression. But the sustaining and legitimacy of a relatively large welfare state as a natural part of advanced capitalist countries, at least as far as I am aware, began after the Great Depression.

[Rothbardian]

Not really. As I mentioned there were several major Federal programs that began with FDR that did stick. Most importantly FDR's administration was the major precident for not only Keynsian government inolvement in the economy, but for the production of social programs both for the support of basic living standards and to sustain a certain level of economic growth within capitalistic society. This did not end with FDR, but it continued through the 50s and 60s nd to this day. The LBJ administration was not the beginning of the welfare state, but a continuation of it. Europe is similar in this respect as they too greatly expanded their welfare states through the 50s and 60s after WWII and rebuilding.

Of course there is no single time where it all fell from the sky as a perfect whole. There were state programs before and after the Great Depression. But the sustaining and legitimacy of a relatively large welfare state as a natural part of advanced capitalist countries, at least as far as I am aware, began after the Great Depression.

I would agree that FDR set somewhat of a precedent, but the fact remains he did not create the welfare state. At best he created it for a few years. And he didn't do so because there was a public outcry for it. The guy got elected by promising huge reductions in spending, balanced budgets, etc. If anything there was a public outcry against a welfare state. People saw what Hoover did and wanted no more.

In my opinion, FDR's mistake was going all-in. He threw caution to the wind and just went full throttle with bringing in ridiculous government programs for anything he could think of.

Social policies have to be implemented a little bit at a time. That way the harm they cause is gradual which gives politicians time to find someone or something else to blame.

[anticlimacus]

I would agree that FDR set somewhat of a precedent, but the fact remains he did not create the welfare state. At best he created it for a few years. And he didn't do so because there was a public outcry for it. The guy got elected by promising huge reductions in spending, balanced budgets, etc. If anything there was a public outcry against a welfare state. People saw what Hoover did and wanted no more.

In my opinion, FDR's mistake was going all-in. He threw caution to the wind and just went full throttle with bringing in ridiculous government programs for anything he could think of.

Social policies have to be implemented a little bit at a time. That way the harm they cause is gradual which gives politicians time to find someone or something else to blame.

It's really not quite surprising that FDR began as a conservative, as did his democratic congress. But he was running against Hoover and a destroyed economy--that's why he won. But by 1935 FDR had to change policies, and there was public outcry for it: the 1934 congress was more liberal, there were major strikes, and there were other popular movements springing up throughout the country, including some socialists and communist groups. Roosevelt was pressured make changes. He did not do it to be kind. Moreover, I still don't see how we cannot view these changes as the beginning of a robust welfare state that, as I mentioned before, focused not only on government intervention in the economy, but that also considered maintaining a basic living standard for Americans. So attention was paid to public housing projects, retirement in social security, unemployment benefits, the AFDC. This was both a major precedent and the beginning of what we know today as the American welfare state.