History of Welfare

[Michael]

I've just been thinking lately about Roman history and it occurs to me that Rome enacted a massive public welfare program known as the "grain dole" (starting under the Republic and continued under the Empire).

The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) was founded with this institution in Constantinople.

Fact is, both programs turned out to be highly damaging to the Roman state and were ultimately ended. Constantinople's ending of the 'grain dole' was instrumental in the 9th century economic/political recovery of the Byzantine Empire.

Two questions here:

1. Anyone know of any other public welfare schemes prior to the 19th century? (I'm curious)

2. What does this say about our present obsession with providing similar welfare programs that previously produced such massive political damage?

[dilettante]

I've just been thinking lately about Roman history and it occurs to me that Rome enacted a massive public welfare program known as the "grain dole" (starting under the Republic and continued under the Empire).

The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) was founded with this institution in Constantinople.

Fact is, both programs turned out to be highly damaging to the Roman state and were ultimately ended. Constantinople's ending of the 'grain dole' was instrumental in the 9th century economic/political recovery of the Byzantine Empire.

Two questions here:

1. Anyone know of any other public welfare schemes prior to the 19th century? (I'm curious)

2. What does this say about our present obsession with providing similar welfare programs that previously produced such massive political damage?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "welfare", but both England and the American colonies/states had publicly funded poor relief in the 1700s.

[Michael]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "welfare", but both England and the American colonies/states had publicly funded poor relief in the 1700s.

I respectfully submit that 18th century 'poor relief' was only supplemental and occasional charity - it wasn't meant to be something one could live on, so its not quite the same thing, though it is certainly related.

Ancient Roman grain dole was sufficient for one to live on, just like our modern welfare systems.

I'm basically exploring the idea that public welfare policies might be ultimately harmful to society, given that we have some large-scale data that points in this direction and none that point in the other direction.

[Non Sequitur]

I've just been thinking lately about Roman history and it occurs to me that Rome enacted a massive public welfare program known as the "grain dole" (starting under the Republic and continued under the Empire).

The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) was founded with this institution in Constantinople.

Fact is, both programs turned out to be highly damaging to the Roman state and were ultimately ended. Constantinople's ending of the 'grain dole' was instrumental in the 9th century economic/political recovery of the Byzantine Empire.

Two questions here:

1. Anyone know of any other public welfare schemes prior to the 19th century? (I'm curious)

2. What does this say about our present obsession with providing similar welfare programs that previously produced such massive political damage?

1. Jewish law in ancient Israel had several forms of Welfare such as the poor tithe, widows gleaning the feilds, and the Year of Jubilee. Islamic Law has always required the Zakat. One of the four pillars of Islam, it is best described as a mandatory tithe that goes to the poor.

[Michael]

1. Jewish law in ancient Israel had several forms of Welfare such as the poor tithe, widows gleaning the feilds, and the Year of Jubilee. Islamic Law has always required the Zakat. One of the four pillars of Islam, it is best described as a mandatory tithe that goes to the poor.

As I noted above, I don't think charity (even forced charity) qualifies as "welfare".

Welfare is the provision of continuously sustained sustainance entirely, not just a bit to help you out now and again when times are tough.

Welfare thus serves as a lifestyle and vocation. I don't think the ancient Jewish insititutions you mention are quite the same as that.

[Americano]

As an idle observer of history, were the repeated droughts in tax contributing (grain) conquered areas not one of the major contributions to failure of the Roman Empire? Was that after the grain welfare was stopped or a factor in no longer subsidizing non-contributing citizens?

[Michael]

As an idle observer of history, were the repeated droughts in tax contributing (grain) conquered areas not one of the major contributions to failure of the Roman Empire? Was that after the grain welfare was stopped or a factor in no longer subsidizing non-contributing citizens?
I'm not aware of the Egyptian grain exports falling off at any time before the 7th century.

The grain dole continued in Rome right up until the sack of Rome in 409 AD. The grain dole continued in Constantinople until the mid-6th century when it was ended there. The end of the 'grain dole' in Constantinople marks the beginning of the rise of the Byzantine Empire.

The increasing weakness of the imperial economy in the 3rd and 4th century AD had far more to do with a systematically debased coinage and endless barbarian hordes than anything else I think. There just weren't enough Roman soldiers to fight all the barbarians - nor was there enough money to pay for all the Roman soldiers needed. Thus, the debased coinage. As the coinage was debased, trade and commerce suffered. As trade and commerce suffered, so did the imperial revenues, thus necessitating more debasement of the coinage. Nasty cycle that was.

So, the short answer is that the grain dole ended in Rome only when Rome was ended. In the east, the grain dole ended when the political reasons for having it died with Rome.

That is to say, the grain dole was invented to take care of all the landless yeoman farmers who were impoverished through military service under the Roman Republic. It was thus a 'political' policy from Rome that was copied/transfered to Constantinople. Constantinople ended it because there was no real political reason for having it.

[Non Sequitur]

As I noted above, I don't think charity (even forced charity) qualifies as "welfare".

Welfare is the provision of continuously sustained sustainance entirely, not just a bit to help you out now and again when times are tough.

Welfare thus serves as a lifestyle and vocation. I don't think the ancient Jewish insititutions you mention are quite the same as that.

Well, I don't know about the Zakat, but I know the Jewish laws are supposed to be able to sustain widows and orphans because they have no one else to sustain them. For an example, read the book of Ruth.

[dilettante]

I respectfully submit that 18th century 'poor relief' was only supplemental and occasional charity - it wasn't meant to be something one could live on, so its not quite the same thing, though it is certainly related.

Well, that depends. If one was bad enough off, poor relief could become permanent, providing food, housing and even medical assistance (all of it horribly unpleasant, of course). But one had to be in a pretty sad state to be eligible.

However, you're right that it's primary purpose was to keep people from dying long enough to get them back on their feet and out the door again; permanent dependence was not the goal.
But then, I imagine few supporters of welfare today view the goal of welfare as permanent dependence on the state. Isn't/wasn't the intent to supplement income and hope that it would eventually no longer be necessary?


Ancient Roman grain dole was sufficient for one to live on, just like our modern welfare systems.

I'm basically exploring the idea that public welfare policies might be ultimately harmful to society, given that we have some large-scale data that points in this direction and none that point in the other direction.

One could always argue that large crowds of poor, hungry people who see no benefits for themselves or their children in the current social system are potentially even more harmful to society.

[Michael]

But then, I imagine few supporters of welfare today view the goal of welfare as permanent dependence on the state. Isn't/wasn't the intent to supplement income and hope that it would eventually no longer be necessary?
But that's not how modern welfare programs work. They are not a 'temporary supplement' at all.

Modern welfare is meant to cover the basic cost of food, shelter and clothing. It is a comprehensive 'lifestyle' program that takes into account individual dietary needs (for example).

As such, modern welfare programs are very much like the old Roman 'grain dole' - supplying thousands/millions of people with enough bread to live on, on an ongoing/permanent basis.

And that similarity between Rome and our modern world is what has me thinking about this issue. We know that this 'grain dole' was massively harmful to Roman society in the long run.

And if such a welfare program was so harmful to Roman society, it behooves us to inquire if such a similar program might be equally harmful to western society in the long run as well.

One could always argue that large crowds of poor, hungry people who see no benefits for themselves or their children in the current social system are potentially even more harmful to society.
That is precisely the type of people that the grain dole or welfare programs create and why I think the program is potentially dangerous.

Welfare is no solution to the problem of massive amounts of surplus (i.e. "useless") labor. It is a temporary bandaid only.

[dilettante]

And if such a welfare program was so harmful to Roman society, it behooves us to inquire if such a similar program might be equally harmful to western society in the long run as well.

...

Welfare is no solution to the problem of massive amounts of surplus (i.e. "useless") labor. It is a temporary bandaid only.

I agree that any system which helps establish a large permanently dependent class is bad news.
However, it seems to me that any solution shouldn't focus so much on what's wrong with welfare as on why welfare is perceived as necessary. Either severe poverty must be eliminated or another system must be present to deal with it.
Welfare may (and perhaps the Roman grain dole did) exacerbate the problem of a dependent underclass, but they didn't create the problem entirely. Remove it without a suitable replacement, or without changing the system to make it unnecessary, and you end up with lots of desperate, angry people.

[Michael]

I agree that any system which helps establish a large permanently dependent class is bad news.
However, it seems to me that any solution shouldn't focus so much on what's wrong with welfare as on why welfare is perceived as necessary. Either severe poverty must be eliminated or another system must be present to deal with it.
Welfare may (and perhaps the Roman grain dole did) exacerbate the problem of a dependent underclass, but they didn't create the problem entirely. Remove it without a suitable replacement, or without changing the system to make it unnecessary, and you end up with lots of desperate, angry people.
Yes, my inquiry about the history of welfare was predicated upon the idea it might have harmful longterm effects. If we have some general agreement that this is so, then we can move the discussion to the next phase - and that is to inquire as to what purpose/function social welfare programs serve - why do we have them and/or why do we need them?

This of course points to the general issue of poverty and how to address that problem, but I'm not entirely sure that's the full issue here as politics likely plays a big role as well.

I believe I've previously advanced the argument that social welfare programs are a 'tax' paid by wealthy taxpayers to bribe the less fortunate citizens to be politically docile. As such, the similarities with the Roman 'grain dole' appears to be strong.

[Michael]

Well, I don't know about the Zakat, but I know the Jewish laws are supposed to be able to sustain widows and orphans because they have no one else to sustain them. For an example, read the book of Ruth.

That still doesn't seem to be welfare since it isn't class based or a general program. It would be 'means-tested charity' in my view since it applies only to some specific and particular circumstances, not a general class of people.

Secondly, religious laws of the church are very different things from civil or secular laws. Were these Jewish laws pertaining to the sustanance of widows and orphans handled by religious organizations or secular-civil authorities?

[Greendruid]

Just to throw in something different here, I know that Sweden has one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. However, they also have one of the lowest population growth rates (negative in fact), crime rates and early pregnancy rates too. The welfare system is precisely what gets cited in most sociology texts as the reason for these other "good things". However, perhaps our value of what is good for these other factors is also a part of the problem. For instance, I can't see how negative population growth is a good thing for a state. States want to grow and this presents a significant problem to natural increase.

[Michael]

Just to throw in something different here, I know that Sweden has one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. However, they also have one of the lowest population growth rates (negative in fact), crime rates and early pregnancy rates too. The welfare system is precisely what gets cited in most sociology texts as the reason for these other "good things". However, perhaps our value of what is good for these other factors is also a part of the problem. For instance, I can't see how negative population growth is a good thing for a state. States want to grow and this presents a significant problem to natural increase.

Population growth rates appear to be in great flux right now. For many years, people have been fretting over the disturbingly low birthrate of wealthy western 'caucasians' generally in every western country. Birthrates have been well below replacement rates in many western countries. Within the last five years though, USA and France (to cite two notable examples) have shown a notable rise in the 'white' birthrate above replacement levels. Seems to me that these cycles need to be seen in generational cycles rather than year to year.

That being said, I think the data on birthrates & welfare is going to be heavily mixed in any short-medium term assessment. Sweden may show a very low birthrate and high quality welfare systems but the USA & France usually show the opposite - with higher birth rates associated with their social-welfare programs.

Getting back to the state's long-term interest, I must agree that a shrinking population is deadly to government finances since a shrinking tax base isn't matched by a substantial reduction in the cost of services.

It would be helpful to have some breakdown data on birthrates to see if the 'welfare consuming' class is breeding at higher rates than the 'taxpaying' class in Sweden. In many countries one can see a high birthrate amongst poor people and a very low (even negative) birthrate amongst the wealthier middle classes giving an overall 'average' birthrate for the nation.

In other words, it would be helpful to have some data that might show whether generous welfare programs tend to increase or decrease the overall birthrate (or no effect). :ummm:

[Non Sequitur]

That still doesn't seem to be welfare since it isn't class based or a general program. It would be 'means-tested charity' in my view since it applies only to some specific and particular circumstances, not a general class of people.

Secondly, religious laws of the church are very different things from civil or secular laws. Were these Jewish laws pertaining to the sustanance of widows and orphans handled by religious organizations or secular-civil authorities?

well, this is ancient Israel so there is no difference between church and state. The religious organization in bed with the secular authority. that division doesn't happen in history till recently.

[Michael]

well, this is ancient Israel so there is no difference between church and state. The religious organization in bed with the secular authority. that division doesn't happen in history till recently.
While ancient history makes the distinction less clear than one might like, I think the distinction can usually be made for most issues if one looks to the issue closely enough.

Alternatively, one can assert that the religious rules of obscure religous groups are not meaningful for analysis of public policy since these religious rules of religous groups often are not legally enforced, or if they are, usually on a highly hypocritical or arbitrary basis. And religous rules only apply to religious people and co-religous sufferers. There is no element of "public policy" here - only 'private religous policy'.

Btw, "ancient Israel" was ruled by consecutively by Egypt, Phonecians, Greece and Rome. Israel has no evidential claim to sovereign rule. Jewish religious authority has never been anything but religious only.

[Non Sequitur]

While ancient history makes the distinction less clear than one might like, I think the distinction can usually be made for most issues if one looks to the issue closely enough.

Alternatively, one can assert that the religious rules of obscure religous groups are not meaningful for analysis of public policy since these religious rules of religous groups often are not legally enforced, or if they are, usually on a highly hypocritical or arbitrary basis. And religous rules only apply to religious people and co-religous sufferers. There is no element of "public policy" here - only 'private religous policy'.

Btw, "ancient Israel" was ruled by consecutively by Egypt, Phonecians, Greece and Rome. Israel has no evidential claim to sovereign rule. Jewish religious authority has never been anything but religious only.

I have to strongly disagree, the division simply doesn't exist for most of ancient history. The church/state divide simply is not thought of until the modern era

well i don't know about that. There is period where they are at least semi-independent. At the very least, we know Israel was in independent kingdom in the 9th century BCE because of the Mesha Stele. all other dates before are questionable, but after that we know a functioning state existed.

[Michael]

I have to strongly disagree, the division simply doesn't exist for most of ancient history. The church/state divide simply is not thought of until the modern era

I disagree about the church/state divide. Yes, the division is modern, but the combination isn't inherent to ancient states at all since the ancient (non-monotheist) version of religion is very different than modern forms of religion. I'd say that the admixture of church & state is mostly (or generally) a characteristic feature of monotheist religions themselves.

For example, I think the ancient Greek and Roman law courts are a testament to the 'defacto' separation of church and state in those societies. These courts followed rational rules of procedure and jury decision (without undue influence of any religious rules).

This contrasts very sharply with early medieval (Christian ruled) Europe when the rules of the law courts were those of the Christian Church (trial by fire, trial by immersion, trial by battle, etc.). Trial by jury wasn't an option.

Likewise with the Muslims. They may have began with a Greco-Roman heritage of 'jurisprudence' and have maintained this tradition in various places over time, but the general trend has been towards increasing theocracy (laws judged by priests) - certainly since the 14th century.

Thus I would argue that it was the relatively modern rise of religious claims upon direct political rule that is the true origin of the concept of separation of church and state.

well i don't know about that. There is period where they are at least semi-independent. At the very least, we know Israel was in independent kingdom in the 9th century BCE because of the Mesha Stele. all other dates before are questionable, but after that we know a functioning state existed.
First of all, I don't think any religious example can be relevant to the topic of this thread since the evaluation process (the framing of the question of the OP) is fundamentally a civil-secular one. Religious claims ultimately cannot be subjected to such rational analysis and judgement according to civil-secular standards.

For example, if I say that Jewish religious laws about charity that mimic 'welfare' may have contributed to the failure of the Jewish state, religious Jews may rightly state that the purpose/function of Jewish religious laws have nothing to do with supporting a state and cannot be judged according to any secular metrics. I accept that reasoning - but because of that, I cannot accept the example of any given Jewish religious law as meaningful to a discussion ruled by civil-secular metrics. They just aren't applicable.

As for the independence of the Israelites, suffice it to say that their 'civil society' was ruled in turn by Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome between the 9th and the 1st century BC. Thus any rules the Israelite Jews may have had, would apply only to Israelite Jews.

But the bottom line here must be that religious tenets are, by definition, inappropriate for rational analysis by civil metrics as they are held to be inexplicable in the first place.

(Besides which, even if I were to accept your example, the serial failures of independent government of Israelite society in the time period suggests that such a welfare policy wasn't good for the Israelite state). :D

[dilettante]

I disagree about the church/state divide. Yes, the division is modern, but the combination isn't inherent to ancient states at all since the ancient (non-monotheist) version of religion is very different than modern forms of religion. I'd say that the admixture of church & state is mostly (or generally) a characteristic feature of monotheist religions themselves.

For example, I think the ancient Greek and Roman law courts are a testament to the 'defacto' separation of church and state in those societies. These courts followed rational rules of procedure and jury decision (without undue influence of any religious rules).

This contrasts very sharply with early medieval (Christian ruled) Europe when the rules of the law courts were those of the Christian Church (trial by fire, trial by immersion, trial by battle, etc.). Trial by jury wasn't an option.

Likewise with the Muslims. They may have began with a Greco-Roman heritage of 'jurisprudence' and have maintained this tradition in various places over time, but the general trend has been towards increasing theocracy (laws judged by priests) - certainly since the 14th century.

Thus I would argue that it was the relatively modern rise of religious claims upon direct political rule that is the true origin of the concept of separation of church and state.


Weren't the Roman emperors often considered to be divine? And, as I understand it (this is hardly my area of learning), the state engaged in countless religious ceremonies: prayers and sacrifices to the gods during celebrations or before major battles or other undertakings, appeals to scryers and prophets, the construction of temples to Roman deities, the legalization (or banning) for particular sects and religions, and a thousand other rituals, many enforced by law to one degree or another. I can't imagine thinking of the Roman state as secular.

From what I know of most other non-Monotheistic cultures, the religious leadership invariably carried tremendous political power. Such linkages could be vital in legitimizing the social structure. To some extent it was only the people's belief that church and state were essentially the same thing (and upheld by the same Power) that kept the whole thing from breaking down.

As for Greece and the Roman Republic, I imagine that religious rituals played a tremendous role there as well. But even if they did not, both those cultures are generally viewed as aberrations in their times (hence our tremendous interest in them).

I agree with non to the extent that the very notion of dividing religious and political authority is quite new. We might be able to look back on some polities and draw lines between them in retrospect (though, IMO, this is extremely problematic), but those are going to be lines that hardly anyone in those polities would have recognized or understood.

[Michael]

Weren't the Roman emperors often considered to be divine? And, as I understand it (this is hardly my area of learning), the state engaged in countless religious ceremonies: prayers and sacrifices to the gods during celebrations or before major battles or other undertakings, appeals to scryers and prophets, the construction of temples to Roman deities, the legalization (or banning) for particular sects and religions, and a thousand other rituals, many enforced by law to one degree or another. I can't imagine thinking of the Roman state as secular.

From what I know of most other non-Monotheistic cultures, the religious leadership invariably carried tremendous political power. Such linkages could be vital in legitimizing the social structure. To some extent it was only the people's belief that church and state were essentially the same thing (and upheld by the same Power) that kept the whole thing from breaking down.

As for Greece and the Roman Republic, I imagine that religious rituals played a tremendous role there as well. But even if they did not, both those cultures are generally viewed as aberrations in their times (hence our tremendous interest in them).

I agree with non to the extent that the very notion of dividing religious and political authority is quite new. We might be able to look back on some polities and draw lines between them in retrospect (though, IMO, this is extremely problematic), but those are going to be lines that hardly anyone in those polities would have recognized or understood.

1. Roman Emperors, with the unique (and colorful) exceptions of Gaius Caligula and Antonios Severus (aka Egalabalus) were only considered 'divine' after death, and that rule applies only to a select few of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. I don't think anyone ever treated Caligula or Egalabalus' claims to be divine seriously.

2. Symbolic prayers before the beginning of a Roman Senatorial session is no different than the prayers before the beginning of US Congress session. If such things don't 'prove' theocracy in the US, they don't prove theocracy in ancient Rome.

3. I never said the Roman state was secular. I said that it is remarkably easy to see a distinction between the 'religious' and 'secular' in Roman and Greek government in their actual actions. This is of course impossible to do with Christian medieval government where no distinction is possible. Roman religion did not claim to be end-goal of all government - quite unlike the Christian & Muslim religions.

4. Roman civil religion did not contain any rules of personal morality.

Btw, Rome had almost total religous freedom throughout the Repubican and early Roman era.

But hey, if you guys want to believe that the Roman Republic and Periclean Athens were some kind of theocracy, that's your call. I think that supposition has no merit at all.

And arguing about this is a digression of the thread topic.

[dilettante]

But hey, if you guys want to believe that the Roman Republic and Periclean Athens were some kind of theocracy, that's your call. I think that supposition has no merit at all.

I don't intend to argue that they were theocracy (I find that term rife with very particular connotations), merely that until recently very few societies drew any sharp distinction between the state and religion. To the extent that Greece and early Rome did so, they were largely exceptional (which would explain why they are so often relied on by enlightenment thinkers).


And arguing about this is a digression of the thread topic.

Quite so.

Perhaps it would be worth considering what alternatives to the current welfare paradigm are feasible.

[Michael]

I don't intend to argue that they were theocracy (I find that term rife with very particular connotations), merely that until recently very few societies drew any sharp distinction between the state and religion. To the extent that Greece and early Rome did so, they were largely exceptional (which would explain why they are so often relied on by enlightenment thinkers).

I don't think Rome and Greece "drew any sharp distinction" between state and religion at all. They most certainly did mix them up together in many ways. They didn't see any conflict between them or address the issue at all.

My point is that the nature of these polytheist religions didn't require that all civil policy be in accordance with some religious rules. Thus, Roman and Greek governments appear to function as civil/secular authorities.

This appears to be a stark contrast with monotheist religions that appear to have a strong tendency to demand that all government policy reflect or serve their religious rules and goals.

Thus, it is only with the advent of these dominating monotheist religions that the very idea of 'separation of church and state' becomes an issue at all. If the religion isn't monotheist, strict separation doesn't seem to be necessary at all.

Perhaps it would be worth considering what alternatives to the current welfare paradigm are feasible.

That's one way to approach this issue. I also think it might be helpful to address the nature of Roman 'welfare' to see how/why (or if at all) it was a contributing factor to the decline of Rome.

The key issue of this thread is to determine if the historical record actually suggests that general welfare policies may be harmful to the existence of the state.

The example of Rome seems to suggest that it is. It behooves us to thus consider what extent the 'grain dole' contributed to the fall of Rome. That is to say, if welfare policies are harmful, we ought to discern how/why they are so that the matter can be addressed.

[dilettante]

That's one way to approach this issue. I also think it might be helpful to address the nature of Roman 'welfare' to see how/why (or if at all) it was a contributing factor to the decline of Rome.

The key issue of this thread is to determine if the historical record actually suggests that general welfare policies may be harmful to the existence of the state.

The example of Rome seems to suggest that it is. It behooves us to thus consider what extent the 'grain dole' contributed to the fall of Rome. That is to say, if welfare policies are harmful, we ought to discern how/why they are so that the matter can be addressed.

Hmmm. While I'd certainly be interested in learning more about 'Roman welfare'; I doubt I can contribute anything to that discussion that couldn't be looked up on wikipedia.

It seems to me, however, that if the 'historical record' of general welfare offers only one example, and that example is from two millennia ago under Imperial Rome, then that record is going to be of minimal value in determining the effect of welfare today, and is just as likely to mislead as to instruct.
The differences between Rome and the western world of today are immense; technology alone creates an enormous gulf, to say nothing of cultural difference.
Perhaps even more importantly, our knowledge of the culture and outlook of Rome's poor is extremely limited (the poor have a nasty habit of not leaving written records of their thoughts and motivations), and any attempt to judge whether modern welfare might have effects similar to the Roman grain dole would have to hinge (in large part) on how the 'welfare' in each case is perceived by those receiving it.

[Michael]

It seems to me, however, that if the 'historical record' of general welfare offers only one example, and that example is from two millennia ago under Imperial Rome, then that record is going to be of minimal value in determining the effect of welfare today, and is just as likely to mislead as to instruct.
Correction - I've cited two examples - Rome and Byzantium. Both operated the exact same program.

Yes, the data is limited. So is the data set for "Empires falling".

Statistically speaking, any data set less than 100 is unviable for statistical extrapolation. Ergo, would you have us ignore any issue if there is less than 100 examples to look at?

Btw, I'm not extrapolating any statistics at all here so arguments against that technique are irrelevant.

I've observed that the history of welfare appears to hold only two substantial cases prior to modern era and both have rather negative results. That's it, that's all.

The differences between Rome and the western world of today are immense; technology alone creates an enormous gulf, to say nothing of cultural difference.
Actually, I'd say the political parallels between Rome and US politics are striking.

And to be honest, I don't see much difference here at all. Technology is just a tool. Did the world change when the hammer was invented? Did people stop gossiping, having sex and laughing at racist jokes?

Human nature is human nature - inventing television doesn't really change that.

Indeed, what is the difference between "bread & circus" vs "welfare & television" ???

They look an awful lot alike to me.

Perhaps even more importantly, our knowledge of the culture and outlook of Rome's poor is extremely limited (the poor have a nasty habit of not leaving written records of their thoughts and motivations), and any attempt to judge whether modern welfare might have effects similar to the Roman grain dole would have to hinge (in large part) on how the 'welfare' in each case is perceived by those receiving it.
How on earth is the feelings of any given welfare recipient relevant to the issue of the failure of nation-states?

I don't think I'm trying to "judge" modern welfare. I'm just trying to look at what are the most likely systemic results of state-sponsored welfare policies.

I rarely care about moral issues - the morality of receiving or giving welfare (or alms) is ultimately irrelevant to me. I'm only interested in public policy - what works and what doesn't work?

[dilettante]

Actually, I'd say the political parallels between Rome and US politics are striking.

And to be honest, I don't see much difference here at all. Technology is just a tool. Did the world change when the hammer was invented? Did people stop gossiping, having sex and laughing at racist jokes?

Human nature is human nature - inventing television doesn't really change that.

The parallels may be striking, but the reason we find them so is that we know that, in general, the two societies are enormously different.
For example, take your average American and your average Roman and have them switch places and (even ignoring language) each of them will be quite utterly bewildered by the world you drop him into, and one (possibly both) of them will probably be horrified.

And how can you just disregard technology when considering the issue of government welfare!?! Any discussion of that topic inevitably takes into account the production, transportation, and distribution of resources, the ability to track and regulate expenditure, demographic data collection, tax collection and assessment, and lord knows how many other factors that technology has altered.

We're talking about two thousand years of technology change here. Going from pre-hammer to post-hammer may not make a huge difference; going from pre-hammer to post-airplane/machine-gun/nuclear-power-plant changes the nature of the game quite a bit.

You bring up the TV. Can you really say that the television hasn't revolutionized politics? The non-stop news coverage, televised debates where we can see whether or not a politician looks at his watch too many times or sweats too much, live images of burning villages and slain civilians in wartime...The TV and its associated technologies has made a HUGE difference politically, to say nothing more basic technologies which Rome lacked such as a the printing press.


How on earth is the feelings of any given welfare recipient relevant to the issue of the failure of nation-states?

How could it not be relevant?!?
Do they feel entitled to the welfare or humbly thankful for it?
Do they feel that welfare demeans them or are they empowered by it?
Do they feel they have other options if welfare is cut off, or is this a life-or-death for them?
Do they feel that it at all decreases their rights to make other demands of the government?
Has it encouraged a class-consciousness among them or not?
Do they associate it with one political party, with both, or neither?
...etc...etc.

The difference between, on one hand, an underclass that has no shared identity, no sense of entitlement, and considers welfare as a blessed, but not essential, gift of society, and on the other, an underclass that is unified, resentful, and considers welfare to be a life-sustaining entitlement owed to them by the rest of society is rather extreme. The future of the state may well hinge on which of the two it has.
That dichotomy is extreme, but suffice it to say that the success or failure of the state depends rather heavily on what the people think of it and its policies.