Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 30

= May 30 =

"Welfare quarantining" Schemes - effective? cost effective? ethical?
A few months ago, the UK considered a "welfare cash card bill", put forward by Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke, which would attempt to limit what welfare recipients could spend their payments on. On the "prohibited" list would be alcohol, tobacco, gambling services, and (oddly, IMHO), pay TV. I logically presume that reducing the purchase of illicit drugs with welfare money would also be part of the objective.

(I consider the inclusion of pay TV "odd", as unlike the others, pay TV is not generally considered an addiction).

I see two major problems with such a scheme:

1. Administration costs. My understanding is that such costs already eat up a huge chunk of the welfare budget (am I correct?). Is there any way such a "cash-card scheme" could be introduced without causing such costs to balloon significantly? I presume the cash-card would use existing eftpos systems, but even so, would such a scheme be able to be implemented in a cost-effective way?

2. Diversion / circumvention. This somewhat ties in with issue 1. If you strictly limit what CAN be bought with the card (a "white-list"), you would presumably need costly systems to implement this. Standard eftpos systems won't do.

On the other hand, if you use a "black-list" system (where the card could be used anywhere but casinos, pubs, bottle-shops, gambling sites etc), I assume the admin costs would be significantly cheaper (though possibly still high). But would such a system be effective? Wouldn't people just buy up stuff with the card, re-sell it (on the net or whatever), and use the cash to buy their ciggies / alcohol / drugs etc?

For comparison's sake, how effective is the long-standing U.S. "food stamps" program at getting recipients to spend the stamps on food, rather than trading them for drugs or booze? And how much of an administration cost burden does it impose, over and above what it would cost to pay recipients cash directly?

In sum, can such a system be cost-effective? And can it be effective? 61.88.210.42 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * These stories have been in the U.S. news a lot lately, Arizona, Michigan, and for drugs specifically Texas and Florida, which actually was found not to be cost-effective but a drain on taxpayers as reported by the news parody Daily Show.  That said to really get answers to your questions some long term studies should be conducted of which I know none, it isn't unusual for government directives to lose money for 1-2 years before benefiting society, so a multi-year study would be the most reliable.    Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   09:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to define "effective" before we can answer. If you mean "effective in getting people back to work", it depends on whether you consider the UK bill's proposed ban on paying to access the Internet would have worked: as from later in this year, the only way to access unemployment benefits will be through the Internet, I guess it would do. Unfortunately it's pretty much also the only way to apply for jobs these days. If it had been introduced, I guess there would be a thriving black market in the cards - but we're not here to speculate. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (OP here - different computer). When I say "effective", I'm asking not in terms of getting people back to work (that's WAY too much to expect), but in substantially reducing the amount of welfare money which ends up (either directly or indirectly) in the pockets of the drug dealers, bottle shops, and cigarette companies. 14.201.22.133 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just so you know. In the UK, cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling (in the form of lottery tickets) can easily be bought in supermarkets and most smaller food shops ie. the very shops people with the proposed welfare card would be doing their 'legitimete' shopping.  The burden of applying a white list of products would therefore fall on shop staff.  Either that or Job Centre snoops would be charged with checking people's shopping (where? outside the store, or surprise visits at home?).  As I see it, the plan as proposed by Alec Shelbrooke MP, would have been fundamentally flawed for UK society. Astronaut (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the larger supermarkets, the tills already flag up those items for age restrictions, forcing the cashier to check. it would presumably not be too hard to make it refuse the sale if payment was attempted with a welfare cash card.  The smaller shops would still present a problem, unless you impose punitive measures on the shops themselves.  MChesterMC (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I added "ethical" to the subject line, surprisingly enough "cost effective" and "effective" are not always the only considerations for government action, it seems we are basically talking about treating adults as children. Even the Old Testament instructs rulers to let the poor and needy have their drink so they can forget their poverty. (Prov 31:7). It sounds like a nanny state where no sort of relaxation or living is to be encouraged or tolerated, happy or relaxed peasants are no fun to feel superior toward I suppose so we have to take away whatever we can and make them pissed off peasants, foolhardy though this is. So what exactly makes them think they have the right anyway? This lording it over the poor often featured in Britain's history actually goes directly against everything taught throughout all the scriptures. So what is their doctrine really based on then? "101 ways to oppress people"? Sindonwe (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not "lording it over the poor", but an attempt (rather ineffective) to prevent the taxes of those who cannot afford such luxuries being used to fund the apparently extravagant lifestyle of some welfare recipients. Do welfare payments in the USA not have similar restrictions?    D b f i r s   19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

European Union
Why do national leaders insist on promoting the European Union despite public discontent with it? Speaking as a member of the United Kingdom the majority of the electorate seem to be disenfranchised with the EU because there is a perception of it encroaching on national sovereignty and undermining Parliament, it doesn't give us control of our own border from other European nations, and just recently its threatening legal action because the government is seeking to restrict the benefits available to those migrants; the European Parliament insists on enacting frivolous decrees on practically every conceivable thing, from fishing to olive oil. Why do government policies on the issue of the EU not reflect the views of the electorate --Andrew 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm awfully sorry by the way if my asking a legitimate question about member states governments failure to question the EU is offending anybody - this question has after all been deleted twice. However, why elected leaders are failing to do anything about the creation of a bureaucratic superstate is a legitimate concern and can be answered on the reference desk. To dismiss it as a rant breaches POV, one man's rant is another's valid point. You can delete this post as often as you like but why governments are refusing to question the EU is a question, not a rant, and one that deserves an answer --Andrew 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I just said on my talk page: Because it's not a factual question at all. Some of your premises may be factually incorrect - although I've no wish to challenge them directly - but the overall complexion of the question is a political one. It is entirely about people's preferences for different forms and structures of government, their opinion on what sovereignty is - and whether we've got it or need it - and so on. If you have more tightly focussed questions about EU policy (eg "To what extent has immigration into the UK from recently-joined EU members matched mainstream media predictions?") those would be within the remit of the reference desk. But the general 'Why do politicians do A and not B' question is not generally answerable. By the way, your signature should include a link to your user talk page. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with your question is that it is easily seen as a request for an opinion (often dismissed as an attempt to start a forum-like discussion). Maybe if you didn't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail, you might have a different view.  However, I'll have a go at providing a useful answer...


 * The UK has an opt-out to the lack of border controls throughout much of rest the EU - see Opt-outs in the European Union for details of that and other opt-outs. Tha does allow the UK full control over it borders.  Frivilous decrees (such as straight bananas) are often one of those Euromyths spouted by eurosceptics.  On the other hand, membership of the EU brings a number of benefits to the UK, its citizens and UK business in areas such as justice, environment, safety, trade, and (something I make use of) the Freedom of movement for workers - yes, it's not just about Polish plumbers, it works both ways.  Astronaut (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I was actually going by the most recent Eurobarometer survey and by videos uploaded by the European Parliament which reflect the current situation which seems to be that the European Commission passes an edict and people just go with it. The UK government has also said, repeatedly, that there is nothing they can do with regard to EU laws. And we may well have an opt out scheme but that doesn't explain why 8 million people have come to the country? --Andrew 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Could New World slaves buy things?
I don't mean own things. But if a slaveowner wanted to send a slave to the store to pick something up, could or should have the storeowner refused the sale? Were there standard legal rules or was it left up to community/store/household discretion? Just asking about Africans in the Americas (not only the US) these last few centuries, not interested (at least not here) about how the Egyptians/Byzantines/whoever did things earlier. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help to know the context for this question to be able to answer it intelligently. It would help to know how you arrived at the place where the null hypothesis is "slaves couldn't be sent to buy things from the store for their master" and then ask us for evidence to support or refute that.  It would seem that there's no reason why they couldn't, and thus wouldn't necessarily be the sort of question that one could find references to prove one way or the other. -- Jayron  32  20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They couldn't do a lot of social things (vote, freely associate, travel). I'd just figured this might be another one of those things. Trying not to assume it was or wasn't. Not sure what a null hypothesis is. But either Google isn't helpful, or I suck at Googling. I can manage "null hypothesis", though. Now that I have, no, I don't think I've arrived at that place. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it would depend. The storeowner is under no obligation to deal with the slave, and probably there were those who would not deal with a black man.  And a slave might have money, some were allowed to earn outside money and the master got a part of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. Do you happen to know what the owner's cut of the money generally was? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite unlikely that a storeowner would refuse to deal with a slave sent by his master, at least if he knows both. Why would he? The master probably is reasonably wealthy, and hence a good customer. You may be back-projecting modern segregation and racism back to a time when there was no segregation and the racism had a quite different character. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Trying not to. Just figured buying might be some sort of right or priviledge of free people only. But Jefferson below answers that question, at least for those slaves. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Thomas Jefferson's Crème Brûlée, Jefferson's slaves sold vegetables grown by themselves to the Monticello household, and used the money to purchase "extra clothes, tea, coffee, and other small luxuries from shops in Charlottesville." - Nunh-huh 21:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't need to buy with cash. Could buy with master's credit. Don't know if credit was available in New Spain and South America. Sleigh (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Credit was the lifeblood of the economy of New Spain..." . Pfly (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could a slave buy with his master's credit without permission? Or earn their own? I'd guess no. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They could even buy themselves at certain times and place, under certain conditions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just remember that we can't really provide a single answer even for the USA at a specific time, since as Osman notes, conditions would normally be different from state to state. Stephan's comment is quite correct — someone who refused to deal with free blacks would likely be much more open to dealing with slaves.  Nobody of influence would care if you refused the free black in most situations, but refusing to deal with a slave whom the master sent would probably be seen as an insult to the master.  Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. "Small" answers help. I'm really fairly ignorant about slavery, even the American kind. Lots of kids learn that stuff in school, but not Canadian kids. To put it in context, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, Firmin Monestime already ran my town.


 * I've got a few showing some slaves did buy things (including their freedom), and nothing indicating there were rules against it. The picture still isn't clear, but definitely clearer than it was for me. Reasonable reasoning, too. Thanks, everyone. You've been much more helpful than Google, who I can't seem to convince I'm not asking about buying slaves. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is tangential to the OP's question, but from a legal standpoint if a slave was to buy something for his owner wouldn't the slave be the agent and his owner the principal? In that case, it might not matter if the slave him- or herself had the legal capacity to buy something, since legally it's the owner doing the purchase by proxy. I know next to nothing about contract law and agency law in those times, so I might very well be completely off, though. Sjö (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A Sculpture by Augusta Savage
Looking for more information on the sculpture by Augusta Savage in this photo: http://www.florida-arts.org/images/halloffame/savage.jpg

Does anyone know the title of the sculpture, when it was completed, and who has it (perhaps some museum), and where I can get a current photo?

Thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.105.32 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No sign of sales by Christies, Sotheby's or Bonhams (though Christies sold her Gamin bust). It looks like it's intended to be a garden sculpture. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't locate it either. A lot of her sculptures seem to have gone lost or were destroyed, as they only existed in plaster and were never cast in bronze or other more durable material due to lack of financial means. (See for example Encyclopædia Brittanica's Guide to Black History or Cummer Museum or Arts and Gardens). ---Sluzzelin talk  14:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad's successor debate in Islamic groups
How can I find out if the prophet Muhammad directly appointed a successor, did not appoint one but had later followers appoint one, or never had one at all. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read succession to Muhammad? In short, the fact that there was no universal agreement regarding this point is the reason there are sects of Islam.  Sunnis say Muhammad never appointed a successor, but that the caliphs elected after Muhammed's death were valid successors, and the Shias say Muhammed explicitly named his successor Ali during his lifetime. So the answer to your question depends on who you ask it of, which is another way of saying, there's no way we can know at this point.  - Nunh-huh 21:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did just read it. But what are the Ahmadiyyas' interpretation, or the Kharijites' interpretation?  The article does not exactly mention their interpretations.  I think that it could improve that article.  108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article could use some work, and not only on those points. If you find an answer, you should consider adding it to the article. - Nunh-huh 21:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Name of law, sociological metric
There is (or once was) a wikipedia article on a "Doe's law" that says any metric used to monitor a sociological phenomena will increase without the actual situation improving. Of course it isn't "Doe" it's some other name. Can someone post the name of the law? NE Ent 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Social facilitation? Bystander effect? Yerkes–Dodson law? Audience effect? Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but none of those -- it is/was definitely a single name followed by "law." NE Ent 12:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's an article List of eponymous laws, which may have it. Hawthorne effect sounds like it's closely related. Hutber's law is probably not it, but may be interesting. Those were found from a quick scan - a closer search may pull up something else. -- 71.35.97.37 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Campbell's law! Thanks. NE Ent 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)