NYT: Charity Begins in Washington
Yes, that's an actual New York Times editorial headline: Charity Begins in Washington.
Ever-increasing private philanthropy is actually a bad thing, says the Times, because it crowds out government spending. Why, those private philanthropists can just give money to whatever they want! Better to tax us and let Washington decide where that money will go. I know, that sounds like an unfair caricature, it sounds like parody... but, well, read the piece.
Why politicians should be trusted to spend other people's money more than private individuals should be trusted to give away their own money, I cannot fathom. That private charity is less likely to entail gross waste and more likely to serve those in need effectively is so obvious that it would seem unnecessary to point it out -- and yet, there's the Times. We might also point out to the Times that private charity would surely give much more for "social services" if government weren't occupying so much of that field.
There are moments when I feel a bit sad over the decline and impending death of print newspapers; but not when I read evil nonsense like this.
Comments (30)
Wow thank you for sharing this. I had high respect for the NYT but now no more.
Published: January 23, 2008 12:50 AM
The NYT also printed a piece about Ron Paul attending a white supremacist dinner (everybody's gotta eat). Then the owner of the establishment where the event supposedly occurred said that it was all made up - no ws dinner, no Ron Paul. The NYT retracted, but of course, not everyone sees the retraction. Total statist propaganda rag (as always?).
PS, does anybody else think there is an anti-RP conspiracy? It's hard to explain the low esteem held for him by the MSM any other way. He raised the most money, wins all the online polls (including some with tens of thousands of respondants -- much bigger than zogby survey pools), came in second in NV, beat giuliani and thompson in several primaries ... still he's not in the "top tier", according to the MSM, but Fred and Rudy are. Hmmm....
Published: January 23, 2008 1:52 AM
There is no question that the big media is against Ron Paul as is the corporatocracy currently in power. He is against everything that they stand for. He is however with our founding fathers and the people. Unfortunately it seems that the media has such a hold on the majority of Americans I don't think Paul has a chance.
Published: January 23, 2008 6:13 AM
The piece suggests that private charity doesn't address "real social needs" but rather cultural things (so much for those socialists who believe that capitalism is bad for culture), such as higher education, museums, etc. It fails to account that where what causes are funded isn't the only argument in favor of private charity. The efficiency of getting charity to those that actually need it and not just into the wallets and paychecks of bureaucrats is never mentioned. It also arbitrarily dismisses cultural charities, never mind that fact that things like higher education and medical institutions are good for society. It also fails to account the problem of government regulations shutting down many charities. The infamous example of Mother Theresa being chased out of NYC by building inspectors is a great example.
Published: January 23, 2008 6:41 AM
To characterize a political or philosophical viewpoint as "evil" seems a bit dogmatic. Human behaviour is rarely so neat and clean as to result in grand, widespread happiness for those who follow the good path of, say, free markets (Cf. America's multiple "panics" in the 19th century). At any rate, why recoil in such visceral horror at a viewpoint opposing yours?
The article's basic assertion is that if everybody gets to vote on the pooled resources, then the allocation of money to those who wouldn't otherwise have it is a more "democratic" process. Life is naturally more complicated than this viewpoint or yours. The theoretical version runs: If all the rich people care about is ballet, then disadvantaged people everywhere will suffer! Furthermore, if the people voted, poor people would fare better than ballet. But the precision with which that idea can be tested is not great. Different cultures handle things differently, as do different governments. Do the rich do a better job at allocating money than a government? Numbers for either side could be arranged to show different versions of "better", following the idea that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." So before you charge headlong into defending the rich with tons of numbers, consider that you may have externalized a couple of variables.
Published: January 23, 2008 7:17 AM
I have a friend who is trying to get some money raised for kiva.org. It seems to be a way to give loans to 'entrepreneurs' around the world. Essentially, it is the world bank, but skipping the middle step of giving money to a foreign government to trickle down. It reminded me instantly of Hayek's spontaneously emerging order. Whether or not kiva.org is a good idea, it certainly can't do worse than the World Bank.
Published: January 23, 2008 7:51 AM
The rich aren't the only ones who give to charity, nor is "government charity" decided by any sort of democratic process. When was the last time you voted on what institutions your tax dollars were supporting?
This whole idea that is o.k. to decide how money that does not belong to you is going to be "allocated" sure looks a lot like stealing - why don't we just come out in favor of stealing? At least in outright theft, the thieves get to decide how they will "allocate" their new resources, without bureaucratic middlemen dipping their hands in the pot. Or does the process have to be decided on democratically to be considered good? If that is the case, there is no end to what can be justified, as long as you can get the voters to support it.
There is nothing dogmatic about characterizing a viewpoint as evil. If the central ideas of a theory are based on something that you consider evil, i.e. the use of force to achieve your desired outcome, then call the idea evil all you want.
Published: January 23, 2008 7:57 AM
Cf. America's multiple "panics" in the 19th century
Those crises were caused by government intervention into the economy, particularly into monetary matters, such as legal tender laws, specie-suspension privileges, etc.
Different cultures handle things differently, as do different governments.
All democratic governments have at least one thing in common -- they can't calculate. They cannot engage in economic calculation, even if they wanted to, which they generally don't. They cannot calculate the amount of money that will produce an economically-beneficial outcome, because government expenditures have NOTHING to do with its revenue. Every expenditure, particularly the so-called charitable ones, are guesses.
Have you actually read anything by Mises, or are you merely a state-defender by unthinking habit and custom?
Published: January 23, 2008 8:03 AM
The American welfare-warfare state is crowding out private philanthropy?
To quote The Mogambo Guru, "Hahahahahaha!"
Published: January 23, 2008 8:03 AM
"The American welfare-warfare state is crowding out private philanthropy?"
Considering that government regulations are destroying many small businesses and private charities while the largess of funding for government welfare programs goes not to the the poor and downtrodden, but rather to overhang and the fat wallets of bureaucrats, then yes it is.
Published: January 23, 2008 9:10 AM
to will:
i'm with you! bring back the soviet union. the poor were happy, and the bolshoi ballet was in florid form. (i'm externalizing gulags to simplify the argument).
Published: January 23, 2008 9:15 AM
Yes, predictable tripe from the NYT. It must belong to that genus of idiots who think tax-deductibility is what incentivizes the rich to give (as opposed to merely not being a penalty on giving...) If the authors of the article were serious about this, they'd give public choice and Austrian theories a look. They won't, hence they think democracy is perfectly fine at calculating.
Published: January 23, 2008 10:03 AM
Mrhuh,
I guess the worldwide market collapse is turning my brain to mush, as I meant to write the opposite: namely, "Private philanthropy is crowding out the welfare-warfare state?"
Published: January 23, 2008 10:11 AM
I was wondering about that, David. ;-)
Published: January 23, 2008 11:41 AM
I'd be willing to bet that private philanthropic medical foundations have done far more to advance modern medicine than public health care spending. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute alone has helped fund 12 Nobel laureates. But then again, their research is probably only beneficial to the rich anyway.
Published: January 23, 2008 11:51 AM
"That private charity is less likely to entail gross waste and more likely to serve those in need effectively is so obvious that it would seem unnecessary to point it out "
If you use an utilitarian argument like this, a thief like Will above, will have the the nerve to say what he says.
Doing whatever you like with your property and giving away some of the loot of a robbery can not be compared in any way or form.
Published: January 23, 2008 12:03 PM
Indeed, news reporting is too important to let it be done by private companies- they only report the news they want to. Much, much better to have the government run the newspapers so that democracy can assign a proper satisfaction of news wants.
Published: January 23, 2008 12:11 PM
Will,
I know that I am unlikely to convince you with a simple blog post, so I won't burden you with a lot of real-world examples that won't mean anything to you yet. Suffice it to say that the current sad state of Social Security and Medicare makes perfect sense when you understand the mechanics at work.
Instead, I urge you to read some of the foundational material from Mises, Hayek, or Henry Hazlitt. You assert that the virtue of "public" vs. "private" charity is not an easy thing to determine. On the contrary, it is possible to show logically and conclusively that government action in the market always causes more harm than equivalent private action. It is the very fact that often this harm is unseen or unfelt until much later that people put faith in government action.
Published: January 23, 2008 12:17 PM
Hi, uh, everyone.
I'm glad to cause such a stir, because lively discussion is always fun, but being condescending and/or childish doesn't help your case much. I thought "seems a bit dogmatic" would be taken as gentler language than it apparently was.
The funny thing is that you've all made up your mind; it's black-and-white. One of you actually suggested I was advocating full-on soviet-style socialism (!) That's what I meant when I used the word "dogmatic". The group responded to my post as if it shook the very ground. C'mon, it was a gentle jab, if anything. Even an academic in the hard sciences would yield to the possibility of a theory outside of what they were taught. But here in the world of Austrian economics, everything is so sure as long as you've read certain books? I've read the books, but I've also read lots of other things, so I still say there's room for civil discussion. Is there any to be found here?
Anyway, don't be so defensive: I thought the article was naïve, too.
Published: January 23, 2008 3:21 PM
"The funny thing is that you've all made up your mind; it's black-and-white."
Yes, it is black-and-white. I am always amused by people who dispute the truth by resorting to the "black-and-white" objection, as if their "shades of gray" isn't also dogmatic in its assertion of moral ambiguity.
Absence of a bias is still, in and of itself, a bias also.
Published: January 23, 2008 5:12 PM
Ethics is always "black and white". If you want to call it dogmatic, yes ethics is dogmatic.
If you want shades of gray you want to check Aesthetics.
Regarding property, either there is agression against property or not. You can not have a shade of grade, a middle.
A persons decision regarding what to do with his property is not the same thins as dividing up a loot of robber, aka the result of an agression against property.
Also this issue is not an economics issue, but an ethics issue.
It doesn't matter what result each achieve.
Published: January 23, 2008 5:16 PM
irony...some people just don't get the concept. too much time spent slaving over textbooks.
Published: January 23, 2008 5:22 PM
The group responded to my post as if it shook the very ground. C'mon, it was a gentle jab, if anything. Even an academic in the hard sciences would yield to the possibility of a theory outside of what they were taught.
Your comment was based on several assertions that are entirely false -- tired old cliches that nominally educated people feel the need to repeat without bothering to consider or verify. This ignorance is, unfortunately commonplace, largely due to government-run schools propagating lies that just so happen to suggest that more government interference in people's economic lives is a vital necessity.
Your comment about the 19th century banks, for example. Have you read any good books about the history of 19th century American banking? I can make a suggestion, if you like.
http://mises.org/store/History-of-Money-and-Banking-in-the-United-States--P191C18.aspx
Then, when it is pointed out to you that you have your facts and historical assumptions completely wrong , you resort to the tired old cliche of moral relativism and the shades-of-gray thing.
In the hard sciences, there is open debate about some things, but not others. If someone were foolish enough to make an argument about scientific fact predicated on the unquestioned assumption that the human body is regulated by the balance of the 4 humours, or that chemistry can be explained by the interaction of the 4 elements of matter -- earth, air, fire and water -- the reaction from the scientific community would be somewhat dogmatic. I suggest you would find that these scientists have made up their mind, in a very black-and-white way, about the validity of your propositions.
Published: January 23, 2008 7:41 PM
"The Finnish government probably has money to build children’s health clinics."
The US does too. The problem is that it instead spends the money on paying interest on the national debt and on bombs and airplanes to deliver those bombs. Preaching to the choir I'm sure, but still.
Nonprofit groups that rely on the largess of the wealthy are doing fine.... Giving is down at Lighthouse Ministries, which serves the needy in Florida.
The juxtaposition of these statements is telling. Charities that rely on the wealthy are doing fine, but those that don't aren't doing fine. It never crosses the writer's mind to ask why less well off givers are giving less this year. That is the important question. Instead the writer jumps to the conclusion that the government must do something.
Published: January 23, 2008 8:26 PM
This is a unique experience. People are usually polite to me. In fact, I think you would be polite with me if we were having this discussion face-to-face, so I'm going to take the aggressive vitriol with a grain of salt.
I thought the article was silly and naïve, just not "evil". I would have even taken "insidious" instead. That was the main point of my post. That's it, really. I think ktibuk has answered it best, that given an absolute morality where aggressiveness against property is concerned, all aggressiveness against property is evil. Hey, I'll take that. First of all, because it's not insulting, but more importantly, because it addresses my question.
Newson, I'm going to go on the assumption that you enjoy inserting over-the-top ironical rim-shots into all of your conversations.
Christian, "There is nothing dogmatic about characterizing a viewpoint as evil." Quite right. Characterizing a viewpoint as incontrovertibly true to the exclusion of all other things would be dogmatic.
George, I actually appreciated the thoughts on the bank panics, because I find that part of American history interesting. I understand now that your frustration is with the harping of the New York Times, which I actually just summarized. But seriously, now. It's the New York Times. I'm pretty sure the editor believes in the Easter Bunny.
Go ahead and tell me everything (at least in this context) is a moral absolute, and I'll understand your position. "Think you might have left something out, guys?" "No, we are infallible!" Fair enough. Try your absolute hardest, though, not to be insulting, because in a black-and-white morality, being mean is rounded up to evil.
Published: January 23, 2008 11:13 PM
because in a black-and-white morality, being mean is rounded up to evil.
Also false. Crimes are evil -- murder, theft, robbery, rape, battery, etc.
There is a whole category of activity that, while wrong, is not evil. Being drunk in public. Dressing inappropriately. Talking during movies. Cutting in line. Not waiting for people to leave an elevator before you get on.
One of the problems with modern culture is that it mischaracterizes some beneficial, laudable behaviors as evil, and treats some evil behaviors as perfectly acceptable.
Amazon ships books for free, and France tells them that they are causing so much harm that they have to be stopped by force. A company wants to hire people at a wage below the government's arbitrary rate, and the proprietor gets fined. A clothing manufacturer moves his factory to Vietnam to stay competitive, and the Democrats call him a traitor. All of these behaviors are economically beneficial. They should not be condemned. Quite the contrary.
But a union locking out competitors is actively harmful. It deprives non-members of their God-given right to freely associate with a willing employer. Child labor laws force desperate families into even worse conditions.
When a rogue cop deprives a suspect of his rights against self-incrimination and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, he is routinely labeled as evil. I don't see how using government agents to rob people and punish them with economic hardship and effectively destroying their rights of free association is not also evil.
Published: January 24, 2008 8:41 AM
"Evil" has a religious connation but,
From "absolute rules" to the "shades of gray" it goes
Ethics(law),
Morality,
Aesthetics.
Aesthetics takes much more time in humans lives, but ethics are the most important because they are life or death issues.
This is where objectivity and subjetivity comes into play.
Ethics are objective, but aesthetic valuations (including economic valuations) are subjective.
Ethics are based on the premise that every human is the same.
Aesthetics is based on the premise that every human is unique, thus different.
And both premises are true.
Every human share certain traits that makes the category "human", and these traits are also called "human nature".
Also every human has subtle differences, which makes every human a unique individual.
Morality falls in between.
Not lying, being nice, helping out, etc are not life or death issues but these rules help maximize the benefits of a society.
You get all kinds of problems when you mix these up.
Published: January 24, 2008 9:59 AM
"Not lying, being nice, helping out, etc are not life or death issues but these rules help maximize the benefits of a society."
My Bible says that lying is a life or death issue. It says THOU SHALT NOT LIE. It says liars will not inherit eternal life.
Published: January 25, 2008 5:44 AM
I have written a rebuttal article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora49.html
Published: January 25, 2008 1:45 PM
Indeed, news reporting is too important to let it be done by private companies- they only report the news they want to. Much, much better to have the government run the newspapers so that democracy can assign a proper satisfaction of news wants.
LOL!
I'm definitely going to use this one.
Published: January 25, 2008 5:55 PM