Discussed crowded public welfare state, both in Europe and in America since the last century. In fact, in countries such as Germany and Britain, some of the dominant political parties, each claiming that they are most competent to run welfare programs. In other words, the issue of welfare (welfare) become a significant political commodity to be sold and then won the popular vote in elections. This paper intends to describe the criticisms that have been directed at the idea of a welfare state [3] From here, we could see the weaknesses of the welfare state as an idea. While the welfare state, on the one hand can be understood as:
concept of government in the which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those Unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life (BSE: 2006).
While the characteristics of the welfare state than [traditional] in brief can be viewed through the 4 factors, namely: (1) security of employment (full employment) in which, the number of the unemployed should not exceed 3% rather than the working population, (2) social security (social security) that has two characteristics: breadth and universality. Social security should cover the entire population [4] and extends to all aspects of social life such as accident insurance, pensions, etc., (3) free public education and (4) redistributive social policies (social policy understood as redistributory). In this case, the welfare state must strive to increase the level of satisfaction in the lives of individuals and social life (Vidal: 1997: 102).
Failure of Welfare State
At least, there are three main interpretations of the idea of welfare state, namely:
(1) the provision of welfare services by the state, (2) an ideal model in the which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, Because the all aspects of welfare are Considered; a "safety net" is not Enough, nor are minimum standards. It is universal, Because it covers every person as a matter of right, (3) the provision of welfare in society. In many "welfare states", especially in continental Europe, welfare is not Actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary, mutualist and government services. The functional provider of benefits and services May be a central or state government, a state-sponsored company or agency, a private corporation, a charity or another form of non-profit organization (Wikipedia: 2006).
Welfare state often invite criticism. The desire to guarantee and / or bear the burden (social), which was draped in a country of individuals, in certain circumstances, it is burdensome state budget and even inhibit a country's economic growth. G. Richard Jansen (2006) for example, a scholar at Colorado State University, asserts that: welfare state in Europe is in danger, because the transfer of wealth (wealth) of individuals who are productive to those who are not / less productive, resulting in stagnation in economic growth , especially in facing the global economy. In fact, the system of economic growth which has been the global perkonomian courtier, it has failed in solving social problems, such as global poverty. If you read the statistics that exist, we can not be absent! Referring to the New Economic Forum report, published ahead of World Economic Forum in Davos, noted that the concept of economic growth (economic growth) has failed to reduce poverty. Between 1990 and 2001, for every $ 100 of economic growth resulting from the income of each person, just $ 0.60 is on target and to contribute in reducing poverty (NEF: 2006). How do the proponents of the idea of welfare state to answer a global fact like this? Is not the issue of poverty is also one attention from the welfare state?
Back in Jansen (2006), he mentions that, welfare state contains some dangers, among them: (1) it is often not fair [5], when, took the individual property rights through excessive taxes (excessive Taxation), (2) he replace the collective decision of the government for the sake of freedom and individual decisions, (3) reduce individual initiative and entrepreneurship within a country, (4) expand the powers of government and very open possibilities for corruption. This is similar with Lionel Trilling, a contemporary liberal thinkers leftist-calling that:
"Some paradox of our natures leads us, once Pls We have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make Them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to Prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic That man knows, that We stand in need of the moral realism the which is the product of the Moral Imagination "(Himmelfarb: 1991).
Also, what about individual creativity? Does not the state also inhibit the development of individual creativity if it reduces one's initiative and entrepreneurship? The answer, yes. Then, is this not lead to centralization? Wilhelm Ropke (2006) affirms this. For him, centralization-happen-especially in decision-making levels, responsibilities, and grow the collectivization of individual well-being and life plan (design for life). In the opinion of the writer, collectivization of individual welfare, within certain limits is acceptable. However, it is not accompanied with the state's desire to regulate one's life plan for the following reasons: the welfare of individuals. Simply put, in this case, the state should not intervene too much. Is not this contrary to the principle: 'to treat human beings as an end' (end) in his life? What about individuals who are not well positioned as a goal in life? [6] Did he have to follow the 'life plan' that has been initiated by the state? Similarly, the issue of responsibility. Would not each individual (should be) responsible for the full-on survival of each?
Other critics are "somewhat" extreme coming from a philosopher as well as novelist named, Andrew Bernstein. In his personal website, he writes that:
But the welfare state's fundamental horror is its assault on the mind. Man's rational faculty is the fundamental means by which he creates values and achieves prosperity on earth. The welfare state, by severing the connection Between values and productive work, renders the mind unnecessary as a tool of survival. Its development and use is no longer required, Because it has been Replaced by a paternalistic state. It is no accident That research shows "lessened cognitive development" in the illegitimate children of welfare mothers (Bernstein: 2006).
From the above quotation we can get a slightly different model of criticism from the previous. Bernstein build an argument that aims to eliminate the welfare state. Here's roughly the argument.
For Bernstein, in various forms, welfare state is still not fair. Because individuals are forced to finance productive individuals who are less or even not at all productive. In fact, not necessarily, individuals who pay for the less fortunate, is the most capable people in the community. Or just the opposite, it is possible, the person most capable in a society, it gets a small obligation to help disproportionately below-the ability he has. In relation to the facts of poverty, he did not regard it as an incurable disease (incurable disease). Poverty for him can be resolved through full-time employment. But with records, individuals who are poor must have the desire to examine and change the destructive values that trick them into poverty sheath. In some ways, he should be able to understand the nature of selfishness [the nature of selfishness] and setting the mind [the role of the mind], if he wants to be successful and happy. This is where the welfare state shows its fangs. He tried to fight the 'understanding' [7] above, while continuing to maintain the premises irrational (Bernstein: 2006). For Bernstein, personal responsibility and inheritance value (value achievement) is a form of intellectual virtues (intellectual virtues); both provide planning, and education. While within the framework of welfare state, one aspect of the above are not fully autonomous. Then it can be understood why Bernstein said that the welfare state premises irrational.
In addition, welfare programs often accused of being a one-way (one-way) (Gilman: 2006; Ropke: 2006). Programs such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) [8] in the United States. To obtain welfare payments a person must work, to adjust their habits [prescribed: p. 2] with certain values and they do not get the benefit of more than five times in his life (Gilman: 2004, 2). In line with Gilman, for Ropke, welfare state not only move in one direction (one-way), but further implications. Without a doubt, according to Ropke, welfare state would lead to a situation where, "the center of gravity of society" [The center of gravity of society] divorced from real communities [genuine communities] to the impersonal administrative center [center of impersonal public administration] and the mass organizations impersonal [impersonal mass organizations] are flanking (flanking it) [9] (Ropke: 2006). In the end, Gilman (2006: 46-7) claims that the welfare state has failed. Not because it failed to meet the demands of the poor, but being unable to meet demand throughout the community. Because, most people only use the well-being (welfare) as a temporary social network (an intermittent safety net), not as a way of life (way of life) [10]
Then, from a series of minor criticisms above, whether the idea of welfare state stop there? No. Let's see more!
Modern [11] Welfare State
Since when the idea of welfare state in crisis? Vidal (1997: 103) points since the global oil crisis in the decade of the 70s. Precisely in 1973. At this time, developed the idea of neo-liberal conservative. Questions about the fit between market capitalism, welfare state with increased again for the first time since the 1930s (Howell: 2006; 1). Simply put, we can look at that, the initial concept of the welfare state began to push, not only by global conditions, but also by the emergence of new concepts.
Allegations that burdensome welfare programs in state budget; preserve the sluggard; not suppress the number of poverty and so on, directly forcing the defenders of welfare (welfare Advocat) to revise ideas about the welfare state. For example, to reform the social fund which has been executed. That is by doing the following: (1) replace loans (loans) with life-event grants. Because the loan system which has been used precisely to trap people in poverty sheath, (2) required a new approach in providing financial assistance for young children who live in low-income families. Because the payment system which has been used complicate the young children and their parents (LNPFCD: 2006; 1). Both of the above is part of the revision. Call it a revision by name: a modern welfare state.
According to Ropke, many people who perceive that the modern welfare state is an answer to the disintegration of communities of authentic (genuine communities) for approximately one hundred years. But for him, this is the wrong answer! Ropke already aware of this since he criticized the Beveridge Plan [12]. Rather than treat the disease of our civilization, it reduces the welfare state (alleviates) some symptoms of the disease from kebertambahjadiannya (aggravation), and ultimately it can not be cured. In fact, he further asserted that the modern welfare state contains a paradox. For him:
The paradox Is That today the modern welfare state carries an excess to the system of government-organized mass relief Pls precisely at a moment of the economically advanced countries have largely emerged from the transition period and Pls That, therefore, the potentialities of voluntary self-help by the individual or group are greatly enhanced (Ropke: 2006).
Although you have to do patchwork, modern welfare state still leaves a gap for the presence of criticism. The issue of personal responsibility (personal responsibility) for instance, remains problematic (Bernstein: 2006)! Not only Bernstein, an academic at the University of California, San Diego, named Richard J. Arneson (2000: 10), were questioned Happenings welfare state policies that exclude personal responsibility as the consequences of personal choices and thus degrade the self-Respected told the poor, more are treated as helpless victims rather than as an agent responsible for her own.
Aside from the issue of self-Respected told the poor, the issue of poverty must not be separated entirely from the difference or, perhaps more appropriate to call it the disparities of access and ownership of key social goods (social primary goods) [13]. If so, can we ask questions here to the supporters of welfare state is this: What if the inequality is obtained (earned) and is recognized as a right that should be accepted (deserved) by individuals, ie, if this is the result of the actions and choices individual-choice (Kymlicka: 2004: 75)? Of course, very naive to say that there are people who choose to live in poverty without convincing reasons. However, we can simply say that it is straightforward: one must accept the consequences rather than actions and options that did knowingly and autonomous. So, if morally acceptable, if the state in this case insisted to intervene in the consequences rather than the choices and actions taken by each individual?
Erik Olin Wright, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin a concentration on issues of Marxism, Socialism, Class and Capitalism mention that at the end of the decade 1960 to early 1970 [14], there is consensus among Marxists, namely: basic function dariapada welfare state is to reproduce and strengthen bourgeois domination. In other words, has emerged a kind of suspicious of the Marxist about the nature of the welfare state. This is not separated from the objective reality; co-optation of the working class; memfragmentasi subordinate classes, as well as subsidize the cost of reproduction of capital (Wright: 2003: 22).
It is easy to understand. Welfare state with capitalism, together for mutual support to one another. Until now, the presence of health insurance, social safety nets as well as various attributes that are in the hopper welfare state, can be defined as a "brake" for the fast rate of "gas" inequality as a fruit rather than 'capitalism'. Both control and remind each other.
Perhaps there is truth that smelled reductionist definition of a libertarian-style such as Jan Narveson (2006: 52), that the welfare state is government [WHO] claims the right to tax people and redirect the money toward the Their goal of Increasing the welfare of its citizens. So, questions that can be ejected to be further discussed is, how the welfare Advocat respond to the criticisms above? How is the formulation of an appropriate adjustment if the welfare state idea was adopted in Indonesia?
Endnotes:
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
[1] The title beginning of this paper is to "Learn a little criticism for the Welfare State" which was presented at a series of community discussions Peacock Flower, the theme of "Welfare State: Between Hope and Reality", held at UGM Lecturer Komplek Perum, Bulaksumur B-21, Saturday, 16 September 2006.
[2] Registered as a student of Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy of GMU.
[3] With this, the authors assume that all participants have been-at least-to hear the ideas offered by the welfare state.
[4] This is where keuniversalitasannya.
[5] Of course this paper do not wish to discuss further about the conception of justice adopted by G. Richard Jansen. In addition, Jansen unfortunately did not explain further what she meant by fairness.
[6] Keep in mind that there are some certain religious communities who choose to live miserable (samsara) by achieving certain goals, that is perfection. In other words, they are not positioned well-being as a primary goal in life.
[7] That is the understanding of the nature of selfishness and the role of the mind.
[8] This program provides opportunities for welfare recipients to work. But do not give feedback to ensure that the work is able to provide economic security; job to make ends meet, or work to meet family needs (Gilman: 2006: 47).
[9] such a process which later led to the centralization of decision making, responsibility and the collectivization of individual well-being and life plan, as listed on page 2. While the definition Ropke about impersonal administrative center in this context means the country, and mass organizations are impersonal institutions of civil society organizations.
[10] This helps them to survive temporarily as initial, such as those who lost their jobs, divorced, or when the child is sick. One such program in the United States is the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). According to Gilman, this program was never to reduce poverty significantly (Gilman: 2006: 46).
[11] The idea about the modern welfare state developed through a gradual process since the late 19th century and continued until the 20th century (Wikipedia: 2006).
[12] A proposed program in England by Lord Beveridge in the decade of the 40s. This program tries to do (sort of) complementation between the ideology of egalitarian welfare state with the ideology of inflationary "full employment" (ideology of inflationary "full employment"), but ironically, it produces inflation (Ropke: 2006). Further explanation about the Beveridge Plan, please read; Beveridge, Full Employment in A Free Society (London, 1944); Wilhelm Ropke, Civitas Humana (London, 1948). William Beveridge was the initiator (founder) than the welfare state (Spicker: 2002; 7).
[13] John Rawls pointed to key social goods (social primary goods) on goods that are distributed directly by social institutions, such as: income, wealth, opportunity, power, rights and freedoms.
[14] Keep in mind, at this period, Marxist theories of the state, has entered the early period of revitalization.
concept of government in the which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those Unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life (BSE: 2006).
While the characteristics of the welfare state than [traditional] in brief can be viewed through the 4 factors, namely: (1) security of employment (full employment) in which, the number of the unemployed should not exceed 3% rather than the working population, (2) social security (social security) that has two characteristics: breadth and universality. Social security should cover the entire population [4] and extends to all aspects of social life such as accident insurance, pensions, etc., (3) free public education and (4) redistributive social policies (social policy understood as redistributory). In this case, the welfare state must strive to increase the level of satisfaction in the lives of individuals and social life (Vidal: 1997: 102).
Failure of Welfare State
At least, there are three main interpretations of the idea of welfare state, namely:
(1) the provision of welfare services by the state, (2) an ideal model in the which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, Because the all aspects of welfare are Considered; a "safety net" is not Enough, nor are minimum standards. It is universal, Because it covers every person as a matter of right, (3) the provision of welfare in society. In many "welfare states", especially in continental Europe, welfare is not Actually provided by the state, but by a combination of independent, voluntary, mutualist and government services. The functional provider of benefits and services May be a central or state government, a state-sponsored company or agency, a private corporation, a charity or another form of non-profit organization (Wikipedia: 2006).
Welfare state often invite criticism. The desire to guarantee and / or bear the burden (social), which was draped in a country of individuals, in certain circumstances, it is burdensome state budget and even inhibit a country's economic growth. G. Richard Jansen (2006) for example, a scholar at Colorado State University, asserts that: welfare state in Europe is in danger, because the transfer of wealth (wealth) of individuals who are productive to those who are not / less productive, resulting in stagnation in economic growth , especially in facing the global economy. In fact, the system of economic growth which has been the global perkonomian courtier, it has failed in solving social problems, such as global poverty. If you read the statistics that exist, we can not be absent! Referring to the New Economic Forum report, published ahead of World Economic Forum in Davos, noted that the concept of economic growth (economic growth) has failed to reduce poverty. Between 1990 and 2001, for every $ 100 of economic growth resulting from the income of each person, just $ 0.60 is on target and to contribute in reducing poverty (NEF: 2006). How do the proponents of the idea of welfare state to answer a global fact like this? Is not the issue of poverty is also one attention from the welfare state?
Back in Jansen (2006), he mentions that, welfare state contains some dangers, among them: (1) it is often not fair [5], when, took the individual property rights through excessive taxes (excessive Taxation), (2) he replace the collective decision of the government for the sake of freedom and individual decisions, (3) reduce individual initiative and entrepreneurship within a country, (4) expand the powers of government and very open possibilities for corruption. This is similar with Lionel Trilling, a contemporary liberal thinkers leftist-calling that:
"Some paradox of our natures leads us, once Pls We have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make Them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to Prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic That man knows, that We stand in need of the moral realism the which is the product of the Moral Imagination "(Himmelfarb: 1991).
Also, what about individual creativity? Does not the state also inhibit the development of individual creativity if it reduces one's initiative and entrepreneurship? The answer, yes. Then, is this not lead to centralization? Wilhelm Ropke (2006) affirms this. For him, centralization-happen-especially in decision-making levels, responsibilities, and grow the collectivization of individual well-being and life plan (design for life). In the opinion of the writer, collectivization of individual welfare, within certain limits is acceptable. However, it is not accompanied with the state's desire to regulate one's life plan for the following reasons: the welfare of individuals. Simply put, in this case, the state should not intervene too much. Is not this contrary to the principle: 'to treat human beings as an end' (end) in his life? What about individuals who are not well positioned as a goal in life? [6] Did he have to follow the 'life plan' that has been initiated by the state? Similarly, the issue of responsibility. Would not each individual (should be) responsible for the full-on survival of each?
Other critics are "somewhat" extreme coming from a philosopher as well as novelist named, Andrew Bernstein. In his personal website, he writes that:
But the welfare state's fundamental horror is its assault on the mind. Man's rational faculty is the fundamental means by which he creates values and achieves prosperity on earth. The welfare state, by severing the connection Between values and productive work, renders the mind unnecessary as a tool of survival. Its development and use is no longer required, Because it has been Replaced by a paternalistic state. It is no accident That research shows "lessened cognitive development" in the illegitimate children of welfare mothers (Bernstein: 2006).
From the above quotation we can get a slightly different model of criticism from the previous. Bernstein build an argument that aims to eliminate the welfare state. Here's roughly the argument.
For Bernstein, in various forms, welfare state is still not fair. Because individuals are forced to finance productive individuals who are less or even not at all productive. In fact, not necessarily, individuals who pay for the less fortunate, is the most capable people in the community. Or just the opposite, it is possible, the person most capable in a society, it gets a small obligation to help disproportionately below-the ability he has. In relation to the facts of poverty, he did not regard it as an incurable disease (incurable disease). Poverty for him can be resolved through full-time employment. But with records, individuals who are poor must have the desire to examine and change the destructive values that trick them into poverty sheath. In some ways, he should be able to understand the nature of selfishness [the nature of selfishness] and setting the mind [the role of the mind], if he wants to be successful and happy. This is where the welfare state shows its fangs. He tried to fight the 'understanding' [7] above, while continuing to maintain the premises irrational (Bernstein: 2006). For Bernstein, personal responsibility and inheritance value (value achievement) is a form of intellectual virtues (intellectual virtues); both provide planning, and education. While within the framework of welfare state, one aspect of the above are not fully autonomous. Then it can be understood why Bernstein said that the welfare state premises irrational.
In addition, welfare programs often accused of being a one-way (one-way) (Gilman: 2006; Ropke: 2006). Programs such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) [8] in the United States. To obtain welfare payments a person must work, to adjust their habits [prescribed: p. 2] with certain values and they do not get the benefit of more than five times in his life (Gilman: 2004, 2). In line with Gilman, for Ropke, welfare state not only move in one direction (one-way), but further implications. Without a doubt, according to Ropke, welfare state would lead to a situation where, "the center of gravity of society" [The center of gravity of society] divorced from real communities [genuine communities] to the impersonal administrative center [center of impersonal public administration] and the mass organizations impersonal [impersonal mass organizations] are flanking (flanking it) [9] (Ropke: 2006). In the end, Gilman (2006: 46-7) claims that the welfare state has failed. Not because it failed to meet the demands of the poor, but being unable to meet demand throughout the community. Because, most people only use the well-being (welfare) as a temporary social network (an intermittent safety net), not as a way of life (way of life) [10]
Then, from a series of minor criticisms above, whether the idea of welfare state stop there? No. Let's see more!
Modern [11] Welfare State
Since when the idea of welfare state in crisis? Vidal (1997: 103) points since the global oil crisis in the decade of the 70s. Precisely in 1973. At this time, developed the idea of neo-liberal conservative. Questions about the fit between market capitalism, welfare state with increased again for the first time since the 1930s (Howell: 2006; 1). Simply put, we can look at that, the initial concept of the welfare state began to push, not only by global conditions, but also by the emergence of new concepts.
Allegations that burdensome welfare programs in state budget; preserve the sluggard; not suppress the number of poverty and so on, directly forcing the defenders of welfare (welfare Advocat) to revise ideas about the welfare state. For example, to reform the social fund which has been executed. That is by doing the following: (1) replace loans (loans) with life-event grants. Because the loan system which has been used precisely to trap people in poverty sheath, (2) required a new approach in providing financial assistance for young children who live in low-income families. Because the payment system which has been used complicate the young children and their parents (LNPFCD: 2006; 1). Both of the above is part of the revision. Call it a revision by name: a modern welfare state.
According to Ropke, many people who perceive that the modern welfare state is an answer to the disintegration of communities of authentic (genuine communities) for approximately one hundred years. But for him, this is the wrong answer! Ropke already aware of this since he criticized the Beveridge Plan [12]. Rather than treat the disease of our civilization, it reduces the welfare state (alleviates) some symptoms of the disease from kebertambahjadiannya (aggravation), and ultimately it can not be cured. In fact, he further asserted that the modern welfare state contains a paradox. For him:
The paradox Is That today the modern welfare state carries an excess to the system of government-organized mass relief Pls precisely at a moment of the economically advanced countries have largely emerged from the transition period and Pls That, therefore, the potentialities of voluntary self-help by the individual or group are greatly enhanced (Ropke: 2006).
Although you have to do patchwork, modern welfare state still leaves a gap for the presence of criticism. The issue of personal responsibility (personal responsibility) for instance, remains problematic (Bernstein: 2006)! Not only Bernstein, an academic at the University of California, San Diego, named Richard J. Arneson (2000: 10), were questioned Happenings welfare state policies that exclude personal responsibility as the consequences of personal choices and thus degrade the self-Respected told the poor, more are treated as helpless victims rather than as an agent responsible for her own.
Aside from the issue of self-Respected told the poor, the issue of poverty must not be separated entirely from the difference or, perhaps more appropriate to call it the disparities of access and ownership of key social goods (social primary goods) [13]. If so, can we ask questions here to the supporters of welfare state is this: What if the inequality is obtained (earned) and is recognized as a right that should be accepted (deserved) by individuals, ie, if this is the result of the actions and choices individual-choice (Kymlicka: 2004: 75)? Of course, very naive to say that there are people who choose to live in poverty without convincing reasons. However, we can simply say that it is straightforward: one must accept the consequences rather than actions and options that did knowingly and autonomous. So, if morally acceptable, if the state in this case insisted to intervene in the consequences rather than the choices and actions taken by each individual?
Erik Olin Wright, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin a concentration on issues of Marxism, Socialism, Class and Capitalism mention that at the end of the decade 1960 to early 1970 [14], there is consensus among Marxists, namely: basic function dariapada welfare state is to reproduce and strengthen bourgeois domination. In other words, has emerged a kind of suspicious of the Marxist about the nature of the welfare state. This is not separated from the objective reality; co-optation of the working class; memfragmentasi subordinate classes, as well as subsidize the cost of reproduction of capital (Wright: 2003: 22).
It is easy to understand. Welfare state with capitalism, together for mutual support to one another. Until now, the presence of health insurance, social safety nets as well as various attributes that are in the hopper welfare state, can be defined as a "brake" for the fast rate of "gas" inequality as a fruit rather than 'capitalism'. Both control and remind each other.
Perhaps there is truth that smelled reductionist definition of a libertarian-style such as Jan Narveson (2006: 52), that the welfare state is government [WHO] claims the right to tax people and redirect the money toward the Their goal of Increasing the welfare of its citizens. So, questions that can be ejected to be further discussed is, how the welfare Advocat respond to the criticisms above? How is the formulation of an appropriate adjustment if the welfare state idea was adopted in Indonesia?
Endnotes:
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
[1] The title beginning of this paper is to "Learn a little criticism for the Welfare State" which was presented at a series of community discussions Peacock Flower, the theme of "Welfare State: Between Hope and Reality", held at UGM Lecturer Komplek Perum, Bulaksumur B-21, Saturday, 16 September 2006.
[2] Registered as a student of Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy of GMU.
[3] With this, the authors assume that all participants have been-at least-to hear the ideas offered by the welfare state.
[4] This is where keuniversalitasannya.
[5] Of course this paper do not wish to discuss further about the conception of justice adopted by G. Richard Jansen. In addition, Jansen unfortunately did not explain further what she meant by fairness.
[6] Keep in mind that there are some certain religious communities who choose to live miserable (samsara) by achieving certain goals, that is perfection. In other words, they are not positioned well-being as a primary goal in life.
[7] That is the understanding of the nature of selfishness and the role of the mind.
[8] This program provides opportunities for welfare recipients to work. But do not give feedback to ensure that the work is able to provide economic security; job to make ends meet, or work to meet family needs (Gilman: 2006: 47).
[9] such a process which later led to the centralization of decision making, responsibility and the collectivization of individual well-being and life plan, as listed on page 2. While the definition Ropke about impersonal administrative center in this context means the country, and mass organizations are impersonal institutions of civil society organizations.
[10] This helps them to survive temporarily as initial, such as those who lost their jobs, divorced, or when the child is sick. One such program in the United States is the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). According to Gilman, this program was never to reduce poverty significantly (Gilman: 2006: 46).
[11] The idea about the modern welfare state developed through a gradual process since the late 19th century and continued until the 20th century (Wikipedia: 2006).
[12] A proposed program in England by Lord Beveridge in the decade of the 40s. This program tries to do (sort of) complementation between the ideology of egalitarian welfare state with the ideology of inflationary "full employment" (ideology of inflationary "full employment"), but ironically, it produces inflation (Ropke: 2006). Further explanation about the Beveridge Plan, please read; Beveridge, Full Employment in A Free Society (London, 1944); Wilhelm Ropke, Civitas Humana (London, 1948). William Beveridge was the initiator (founder) than the welfare state (Spicker: 2002; 7).
[13] John Rawls pointed to key social goods (social primary goods) on goods that are distributed directly by social institutions, such as: income, wealth, opportunity, power, rights and freedoms.
[14] Keep in mind, at this period, Marxist theories of the state, has entered the early period of revitalization.
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment