Abstract
We argue as if there were some sort of objective measure of optimality. We cling to the notion that we can know and prove to others that choices are good, bad, better, best, or worst. We cannot. That enterprise is as presumptuous as the attempt to prove the (non)existence of God by scientific methods. I have tried to show that valuation is a subjective enterprise-the best we can hope for is the comfort of discovering what society believes the optimum to be. To the extent that society believes a particular coordinate expresses an optimum, then perhaps we would not be wrong in characterizing that space as constituting an "optimum," and therefore good. Such coordinates are "bad" only to the extent that the valuation is inaccurate or wrong. It is on that level, one of subjectivity, morality, ethics, and value, that we debate welfare facts. And that debate is endless. As long as the factors which are used to arrive at value change-labor, technology, social perception, morals, and ethics-the optimum coordinates change as well. Even if the programs of the New Deal were "right" at the time enacted, passage of PRAWORA, which substantially undoes that program, may indicate a subjective (some would argue wrong or wrongheaded) revaluation toward a new optimum, one which will, in turn, be found wanting as things change. "To accept the contingency of starting-points is to accept our inheritance from, and our conversation with, our fellowhumans as our only source of guidance. To attempt to evade this contingency is to hope to become a properly-programmed machine.
Recommended Citation
Backer, Larry Catá
(1996)
"Poor Relief, Welfare Paralysis, and Assimilation,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1996:
No.
1, Article 1.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1996/iss1/1