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.
4 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.
Post a Comment