Malibu surfer problem
|
|
In political theory, the Malibu surfer problem is the prospect of an individual who can work but chooses not to do so, and instead leads a life of self-indulgence funded through some other means.
The Malibu surfer problem is usually invoked in relation to at least two different situations:
- Millionaires who inherited their wealth rather than earning it can live off the money produced by their investments without having to do any actual work.
- Modern welfare systems give money to unemployed members of society. The question is thus what would happen if a recipient of such money decided to "surf all day" rather than look for a job.
Typically, discussions on the Malibu surfer problem in the context of welfare are much more common than discussions of this problem in the context of the super-rich.
Most welfare systems have checks to prevent people from living off welfare alone. These include proving that recipients are searching for work, or workfare (being forced to do menial work to earn the money).
In general, the political Right tends to emphasize the Malibu surfer problem and use it as an argument for reducing or even abolishing welfare. Meanwhile, the political Left may counter this argument in a variety of ways. For example, some argue that it is better to suffer from the Malibu surfer problem than to let people starve. Others argue that welfare for the unemployed is an inherent part of the human right to life, and that abolishing it would be immoral. In addition, a substantial proportion of the homeless are mentally ill and may not be able to hold a job. Yet others argue that the effects of the Malibu surfer problem are in any case negligible, since most people would rather have a well-paying job than live just on the edge of poverty, and welfare money is not enough to fund a "surfer lifestyle". The people who can afford to live a "surfer lifestyle" do not have to get jobs, showing how workfare is needed for the poor. Finally, there are certain socialists who propose that the government should give each unemployed person a job, rather than a welfare check.
In popular political discourse, this concept is often embodied in the image of the Welfare Queen. Both of these "problems" presume a particular view of what is required for a person to deserve goods and services produced by the society. For example, criticism of the idle poor is generally treated separately from criticism of the idle rich. Often, the idle rich will not be criticized even though each of them consumes much more of society's produce than any particular poor person. This is due to the unspoken assumption that income from ownership is legitimate regardless of the extent or the conditions under which assets were accumulated, whereas direct payment from the government is at best a form of charity.