"Pathological altruism"

Ever hear about some government program that was designed to make some problem better, but actually ended up making things worse--sometimes a LOT worse?

From what I've seen that would be most of 'em.  (Then again I'm a bit cynical that way, so....)

To give just one of many examples:  People who wished to reduce suffering by children of poor single mothers who'd been abandoned by the biological father came up with AFDC and its many variations.  Poor girls quickly saw this as free money for having kids.  Result:  an exponential increase in the number of births to single mothers--with all the social pathologies that brings.

The weird thing is, this exact result was easily predicable by neutral analysts--and was in fact loudly predicted.  But the folks pushing the programs quickly shouted down all objections with cries of "greedy rich!" and "raacist!"

Well someone's finally given this a formal name:  "pathological altruism."  If you offer to help a friend move and accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn't pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is.

Altruism is linked to empathy--almost universally regarded as a positive trait.  But these two factors can also lead to the phenomenon of co-dependency, in which I care for you so much and want to help you so much that I help you do things that *everyone else can see* are harmful to you.

The professor who wrote this paper says there have been almost no scientific studies of co-dependency, and speculates that this might be because of fears that the results of such studies might be used to--as the author carefully phrases it--"discount the importance of altruism."

I translate that from PhD-speak as "would be used by opponents of more government social spending to oppose new programs."  OMG, can't have that!

Take another example:  Sociologists had long noted what ordinary people had known forever:  that neightborhoods where more residents owned their homes were cleaner, had more family stability and far less crime.  The decidedly illogical conclusion?  All these were *effects* of ownership.

At that point it took just seconds for someone to propose that government create programs that would enable more folks to own instead of renting. The government-backed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae then changed their rules to allow previously-unqualified people to get government-backed mortgages.  Normal risk rules for lending were ignored because the government guaranteed the notes.  When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth less than they'd paid.

Some analysts believe much of the Left's support among the non-poor comes from appeals to altruism.  As their media friends paint it, the Left is altruistic while its opponents are selfish. That sense of moral superiority makes it easy to justify a huge variety of programs that most neutral observers can easily see as flawed.

But self-declared altruism always won.

Perhaps if the concept of "pathological altruism" gains momentum, it might be possible to have a more reasoned discussion of future government proposals.