3 ms·

Charity starts with abundance.

kerkeslager 3y ago
If you insist that charity and abundance are both measured in dollars, then charity isn't really a good thing, because it can only start with sucking up a bunch of resources, far beyond what you need. This model of charity is a farce: having accumulated resources they have no right to, the rich get to do good when and where it's convenient for them, giving away resources that weren't theirs to give. Bill Gates accumulated billions selling the results of other people's labor during the height of the AIDS epidemic, the Rwandan Genocide, the crack epidemic, the war on drugs, rising homelessness, etc., only founding the Gates foundation in 2000. We're supposed to applaud him for ignoring problems for 25 years so he can look good taking on a few politically uncontroversial problems now? No thanks. As it turns out, skilled labor is a resource that can be given charitably, without having to amass vast resources at other people's expense. Paul Farmer or Jonas Salk have changed more lives than the Gates foundation, without accumulating "abundance"--Jonas Salk even refused to patent the polio vaccine.
- aww_dang 3y ago
  Free time is also a form of abundance. Generally this surplus is achieved by living within one's means. Producing more than one consumes is the basic form of profit. Individuals can realize this through leisure or savings. The surplus can be applied for their subjective charitable ends or reinvested into the market. Even there, I'd caution against divorcing charity from the market. Despite screeds to the contrary, charity has a market value unto itself. Gates is a problematic figure for other reasons, but the idea that all profit is theft and therefore abundance is impossible within the market is a bit absurd. The profit motive is what creates abundance. How individuals choose to spend their profits is an individual decision. Before you can act charitably, you need the requisite resources. Obsessing over the units of measure is completely besides the point. Time, skills or goods must be acquired in advance. Hard leftists have a penchant for misconstruing market incentives. Greed, uncharitable hoarding and immoral behavior is an option in the market. However it is not a predetermined outcome. The article speaks to this. The charitably minded auto-mechanic is free to deploy his resources in the way that best suits his ends. Contrast this voluntary charity with state mandated coercion. Violence is implicit. Central planners have little to no incentive to create abundance. Class based subsidies often create resentment and divide communities. As you observe, inter-class and inter-caste conflicts are often used in service of the state's largess. Voluntary market systems have no issue with voluntary charity. To the contrary, they create the conditions of abundance necessary for charity.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Totally agree. As Margaret Thatcher once said: "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well."
    - andyjohnson0 3y ago
      Judging by your comment history, you appear to live in the US. As a brit who grew up during her time in power, I want to say the Thatcher was a vile, vindicive. and spiteful person who blighted countless lives in my country and community. Using her as an exemplar of morality is abhorrent.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        Talking about ideals is nice and all, but unfortunately we live in reality. Bob can't help Chuck over there unless Bob can afford to be charitable. Put another way, you need both will and power to do something. Just wanting to be charitable never helped anyone, you also need the means to be charitable.
        kerkeslager 3y ago
        ...which very few people have, because that ability has been disproportionately allocated to a few people who often choose not to be charitable. The power to take charitable action does not require vast resources to be concentrated in a few individuals, and in fact concentrating vast resources in a few individuals often prevents charitable action from occurring.
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        It doesn't take "vast resources concentrated in few individuals" to effect charity, but a given individual needs to have most if not all of his own needs and desires satisfied first before he can start giving to others. The Good Samaritan helped because he was doing well in life and could afford to help someone out. If he was a beggar he wouldn't (read: can't) help. The Good Samaritan is remembered because he had good intentions and money to turn his good intentions into good actions.

If you insist that charity and abundance are both measured in dollars, then charity isn't really a good thing, because it can only start with sucking up a bunch of resources, far beyond what you need. This model of charity is a farce: having accumulated resources they have no right to, the rich get to do good when and where it's convenient for them, giving away resources that weren't theirs to give. Bill Gates accumulated billions selling the results of other people's labor during the height of the AIDS epidemic, the Rwandan Genocide, the crack epidemic, the war on drugs, rising homelessness, etc., only founding the Gates foundation in 2000. We're supposed to applaud him for ignoring problems for 25 years so he can look good taking on a few politically uncontroversial problems now? No thanks. As it turns out, skilled labor is a resource that can be given charitably, without having to amass vast resources at other people's expense. Paul Farmer or Jonas Salk have changed more lives than the Gates foundation, without accumulating "abundance"--Jonas Salk even refused to patent the polio vaccine.

aww_dang 3y ago
Free time is also a form of abundance. Generally this surplus is achieved by living within one's means. Producing more than one consumes is the basic form of profit. Individuals can realize this through leisure or savings. The surplus can be applied for their subjective charitable ends or reinvested into the market. Even there, I'd caution against divorcing charity from the market. Despite screeds to the contrary, charity has a market value unto itself. Gates is a problematic figure for other reasons, but the idea that all profit is theft and therefore abundance is impossible within the market is a bit absurd. The profit motive is what creates abundance. How individuals choose to spend their profits is an individual decision. Before you can act charitably, you need the requisite resources. Obsessing over the units of measure is completely besides the point. Time, skills or goods must be acquired in advance. Hard leftists have a penchant for misconstruing market incentives. Greed, uncharitable hoarding and immoral behavior is an option in the market. However it is not a predetermined outcome. The article speaks to this. The charitably minded auto-mechanic is free to deploy his resources in the way that best suits his ends. Contrast this voluntary charity with state mandated coercion. Violence is implicit. Central planners have little to no incentive to create abundance. Class based subsidies often create resentment and divide communities. As you observe, inter-class and inter-caste conflicts are often used in service of the state's largess. Voluntary market systems have no issue with voluntary charity. To the contrary, they create the conditions of abundance necessary for charity.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Totally agree. As Margaret Thatcher once said: "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well."
  - andyjohnson0 3y ago
    Judging by your comment history, you appear to live in the US. As a brit who grew up during her time in power, I want to say the Thatcher was a vile, vindicive. and spiteful person who blighted countless lives in my country and community. Using her as an exemplar of morality is abhorrent.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Talking about ideals is nice and all, but unfortunately we live in reality. Bob can't help Chuck over there unless Bob can afford to be charitable. Put another way, you need both will and power to do something. Just wanting to be charitable never helped anyone, you also need the means to be charitable.
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        ...which very few people have, because that ability has been disproportionately allocated to a few people who often choose not to be charitable. The power to take charitable action does not require vast resources to be concentrated in a few individuals, and in fact concentrating vast resources in a few individuals often prevents charitable action from occurring.
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        It doesn't take "vast resources concentrated in few individuals" to effect charity, but a given individual needs to have most if not all of his own needs and desires satisfied first before he can start giving to others. The Good Samaritan helped because he was doing well in life and could afford to help someone out. If he was a beggar he wouldn't (read: can't) help. The Good Samaritan is remembered because he had good intentions and money to turn his good intentions into good actions.