Malibu surfer problem

In political theory, the Malibu surfer problem is the prospect of an individual who can work choosing not to do so, and instead leading a life of self-indulgence funded by the taxpayer. It is a controversial concept regarding welfare, guaranteed minimum income and other related systems.

These 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. Receiving without giving violates the norm of reciprocity. It would also be viewed as an inefficient use of resources, since an intelligent able bodied person should be able to contribute more to the greater good.

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. Yet others argue that the effects of this 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" anyway. Finally, there are certain socialists who propose that the government should give each unemployed person a job, rather than a welfare check.

See also: free rider problem