4 ms·

Thinking out loud here. On the one hand, I find this a persuasive argument. It is similar to the argument against NGOs operating in other countries that don't i

by js2 4y ago

Thinking out loud here. On the one hand, I find this a persuasive argument. It is similar to the argument against NGOs operating in other countries that don't involve the local population in their assistance. On the other hand, it also sounds like the arguments used during welfare reform and an argument against direct cash assistance. So... I don't know how I feel about it. One could argue that Carnegie's wealth was itself a failure of good governance and that these rules he made about giving away that wealth are paternalistic.

rayiner 4y ago
Paternalism is a good thing. One of the things that makes human beings successful as a species is learning successful behaviors. Carnegie was doing those towns a favor by ensuring that they thought through the logistics of operating a library—in the process learning how to operate a public institution. People rail against paternalism out of a misguided egalitarianism. You see this all the time in the context of the World Bank and IMF telling developing countries how to run their economies. You know what? That’s a good thing. Singapore became one of the wealthiest countries in the world by studiously copying the aspects of the British financial and legal system that worked. NGOs that just give money without helping countries learn how to use it effectively aren’t doing anyone any favors.
- Anechoic 4y ago
  Singapore became one of the wealthiest countries in the world by studiously copying the aspects of the British financial and legal system that worked Did Singapore copy those aspects because they chose to do so, or were those aspects imposed on them? (sincere question, since if they chose of their own free will, that would seem to argue against "paternalism is good")
  - azmodeus 4y ago
    Choosing what the keep and what to innovate is still choice. The beginning was imposed but they took it from there and made it work.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    They (Singapore, or the PAP) have freely amended their judicial system as they see fit.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  I completely agree Re: NGOs, but at least Carnegie put up resources for libraries without getting anything back specifically (possibly political good will, but not equity in anything). Does World Bank and IMF want to help developing countries to help others prosper or to grab resources and power from those building it?
ch4s3 4y ago
> One could argue that Carnegie's wealth was itself a failure of good governance I'm not sure there's a specifically compelling argument here. The man brought the Bessemer process to the US and basically invented the idea of vertical integration. That all made steel cheap enough for the US to rapidly industrialize. It seems like a set of accomplishments worth financial reward. > and that these rules he made about giving away that wealth are paternalistic. The culture of the wealthy at the turn of the last century was such that they believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor. This was part and parcel with the late 19th century and early 20th century progressive movement. Moreover Carnegie actively worked against some pretty nasty things the federal government was doing. At the time when Woodrow Wilson was re-segregating the federal government and showing Birth of a Nation in the White House, Carnegie was funding the Tuskegee Institute. At the end of the Spanish-American war, Carnegie butted heads with president McKinley and tried to secure the independence of the Philippines and joined the American Anti-Imperialist League. Regarding your claim of a "policy failure", to what end would the government of 1900 have used Carnegie's money had they seized it? It likely would have fueled the occupation of the Philippines, Wilson's racist and messianic madness, or some other horrific endeavor. Yet, Carnegie used it to fight imperialism, build libraries, and aid the poor.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  And ultimately the public got a valuable resource. And this is great for the ultra-wealthy, but it would be even greater to allow John or Jane Q. Public to allocate a larger portion of their taxes to specific areas of interest. How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance). Assuming tax rates stayed unchanged, guaranteeing X% of incomes are specifically directed by the people would mean X% has little to no lobby influence.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    > How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance) Every taxpayer would. Which is why this idea is entirely untenable. Hmmm, would you like your taxes to go to a community park, or to the janitorial supplies budget for a municipal building annex?

by js2 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

Paternalism is a good thing. One of the things that makes human beings successful as a species is learning successful behaviors. Carnegie was doing those towns a favor by ensuring that they thought through the logistics of operating a library—in the process learning how to operate a public institution. People rail against paternalism out of a misguided egalitarianism. You see this all the time in the context of the World Bank and IMF telling developing countries how to run their economies. You know what? That’s a good thing. Singapore became one of the wealthiest countries in the world by studiously copying the aspects of the British financial and legal system that worked. NGOs that just give money without helping countries learn how to use it effectively aren’t doing anyone any favors.

Anechoic 4y ago
Singapore became one of the wealthiest countries in the world by studiously copying the aspects of the British financial and legal system that worked Did Singapore copy those aspects because they chose to do so, or were those aspects imposed on them? (sincere question, since if they chose of their own free will, that would seem to argue against "paternalism is good")
- azmodeus 4y ago
  Choosing what the keep and what to innovate is still choice. The beginning was imposed but they took it from there and made it work.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  They (Singapore, or the PAP) have freely amended their judicial system as they see fit.
jonhohle 4y ago
I completely agree Re: NGOs, but at least Carnegie put up resources for libraries without getting anything back specifically (possibly political good will, but not equity in anything). Does World Bank and IMF want to help developing countries to help others prosper or to grab resources and power from those building it?

ch4s3 4y ago

> One could argue that Carnegie's wealth was itself a failure of good governance I'm not sure there's a specifically compelling argument here. The man brought the Bessemer process to the US and basically invented the idea of vertical integration. That all made steel cheap enough for the US to rapidly industrialize. It seems like a set of accomplishments worth financial reward. > and that these rules he made about giving away that wealth are paternalistic. The culture of the wealthy at the turn of the last century was such that they believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor. This was part and parcel with the late 19th century and early 20th century progressive movement. Moreover Carnegie actively worked against some pretty nasty things the federal government was doing. At the time when Woodrow Wilson was re-segregating the federal government and showing Birth of a Nation in the White House, Carnegie was funding the Tuskegee Institute. At the end of the Spanish-American war, Carnegie butted heads with president McKinley and tried to secure the independence of the Philippines and joined the American Anti-Imperialist League. Regarding your claim of a "policy failure", to what end would the government of 1900 have used Carnegie's money had they seized it? It likely would have fueled the occupation of the Philippines, Wilson's racist and messianic madness, or some other horrific endeavor. Yet, Carnegie used it to fight imperialism, build libraries, and aid the poor.

jonhohle 4y ago
And ultimately the public got a valuable resource. And this is great for the ultra-wealthy, but it would be even greater to allow John or Jane Q. Public to allocate a larger portion of their taxes to specific areas of interest. How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance). Assuming tax rates stayed unchanged, guaranteeing X% of incomes are specifically directed by the people would mean X% has little to no lobby influence.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  > How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance) Every taxpayer would. Which is why this idea is entirely untenable. Hmmm, would you like your taxes to go to a community park, or to the janitorial supplies budget for a municipal building annex?