I know people who do nothing I can see for the poor but are very quick to illustrate how much they care about them by complaining that other people don't care about the poor. I don't think I need to give examples. I was going to accuse them of desiring simple solutions that don't cost them much personally because they actually don't care about the poor. They want something that allows them to stop having to think about it. I thought this about the Affordable Care Act, because of which Son #5 has had to spend lots of money his entire adulthood to purchase insurance that doesn't get him much medical care. Yet so many people breathed a sigh of relief when it was passed because they could now pretend it was solved and not think about it.
But this is what writing is good for. In marshaling my arguments against these people, I recognised a lot of holes in my case. I don't know what these people actually do for the poor, or for humanity in general. They may give a great deal in secret. (Okay, the ones I am thinking of almost certainly do not, but it's a slippery slope.) They may have relative they support who would be in dire straits without them. That in turn reveals that I don't have a clear definition of what I even mean by "caring for the poor." They may time or concern or prayer that I know nothing about. They might also not be avoiding doing anything as already shouldering the burden for some relative and not wanting it to get worse. If we all helped just a bit it would be a big deal for them. It's hard to accuse that group of selfishness.
Lastly, the accusation looks back over its shoulder at me: "An' what are you doin' for them, mate?"
The people who want those simple solutions are likely those with the better imaginations who are haunted by the suffering of others - and who wants to be haunted? The realise there isn't much they can do themselves, so they hope that taxing billionaires or improving the local tax base or overthrowing capitalism will bring them peace. When I make it personal like this I understand their motivation better. They want it to go away because it hurts. It is tough to accept that the poor will always be with us, that we will always hurt, and that we cannot get away from it by leaving it to others. Trying to do that only deadens us.
12 comments:
Places like food pantries are places where people who differ as to which economic systems do the most good for the least harm can still join together to do something tangible for the needy.
What seems to do both me and the recipients the most good is direct intervention in a specific tight spot, with effort, money, or preferably both: a Good Samaritan kind of opportunity not restricted to a close friend or family member to whom there is an obvious duty.
I find that it is easier for me to do one small thing for one person than it is for me to try and solve the entire problem of hunger in one stroke.
Over some decades, I have become a fan of the "older" economists, who may be faintly recognized and, unfortunately, little read, these days: i.e., Henry Hazlett, the great Adam Smith, F. A. Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat, et al.
One of the lesser known among them, whom I discovered through a more modern economic discussion in a 2007 book by Amity Shlaes, is William Graham Sumner. In the late 1800s, Sumner wrote a [timeless] essay titled "The Forgotten Man."
https://fee.org/articles/the-forgotten-man/
The most pertinent quote from that essay:
"It is when we come to the proposed measures of relief for the evils which have caught public attention that we reach the real subject which deserves our attention. As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. As for A and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but what I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him."
Read the whole thing; see what you think.
The idea of that quote sounds familiar. Did CS Lewis used that type of example in another context, perhaps? I like it already. I will read it.
Dunno. The only work of Lewis that I've read (a long time ago!) is/was "The Abolition of Man," and I don't recall anything similar in it.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From the essay that colocomment links. "If you give a loaf to a pauper you cannot give the same loaf to a laborer." We don't want this to be true, but it is. Someone pays the cost.
Anyone who's never encountered people who'd rather sponge than work has led a charmed life. I believe we do a sponger little good, and ourselves little good, if we pretend that's the same thing as charity. I prefer direct personal charity to institutionalized distant bureaucratic charity for that reason.
Bureaucratic charity does a great deal. It gets a bad rap, but it does help many people, especially those who are not able to advocate for themselves, or who do not have the good fortune to have a functional family.
Addendum to prior comment:
(1) It's Henry Hazlitt, not Hazlett (I *knew* I should have checked before posting!) :- (
(2) Back pre-retirement, when I did not have to watch spending quite so closely, I'd make up a list every January of 12 charities* from which I'd pick a different one each month, to which I'd donate a set sum. It wasn't any large amount in the grander scheme of things, but it allowed me believe that I was sharing some of my relative good fortune (using that word in its broader meaning, not... a literal cash fortune.)
* eg., Girl Scouts of the USA, The Nature Conservancy, The Red Cross, etc.
Unfortunately (there's that word again), those donations put me on their solicitation lists, via which the charities would not only pester me unceasingly, but would share with (sell to?) other charities. ...to the point that I was so annoyed by my paper and email mailboxes FULL OF solicitations that I returned every post-paid envelope with the "gimmee" sheet inside, annotated across its face in bright marker "Please remove me from your mailing list!" Similarly with the emails.
It was quite effective, if I do say so myself.
So, I quit with the charity donations, and instead have been establishing Roth IRA accounts for each g'kid as soon as each earned enough income to qualify, with annual "gift" contributions. (Eg., keepin' it in the family, yo....)
(3) At some point in the past, I stumbled across Charity Navigator, which tracks 501c3 organizations and foundations, including access to their Form 990s (IRS annual return). That form includes a plethora of fascinating & revelatory information, including annual revenues and expenses (sources & recipients), board member and management names, salaries and value of benefits, etc. Good info there.
Sorry this comment was so long..., and wonky. :- )
It's not that bureaucratic charity never does any good, it's that the price tag for the good work it does with needy people who have no ability to advocate for themselves and have neither family, nor friends, nor neighbors, nor church, is overshadowed by the majority of its funding that is poured out on all its other recipients. It's like private charities with huge administrative-to-direct funding ratios: they do help some of their intended targets, but only at the cost of sopping up huge amounts of funding that should have been available for the truly needy.
I agree that bureaucratic charity has its place and does some good. I see it as a further accommodation for a fallen world, that even charity will never work perfectly - or even very well.
Post a Comment