The myth that it is anti-capitalistic to give money away, or to help others for free.
For some reason, many people believe this; that charity is against the profit motive, or against the self-interest.
Also, that true libertarians/an-caps wouldn’t donate to charity or otherwise wouldn’t help others if not for money.
Sounds like someone’s confused the philosophy of libertarianism with the philosophy of Objectivism.
I don’t think it’s “anti-capitalistic,” but it’s not something I would do either. I think part of the beauty of capitalism is that it allows everyone to follow their own moral code so long as they do not aggress against another.
Rand considered charity to be neither morally condemnable nor to be praised in and of itself. Though she wasn’t against it if it satisfied the individual in question, as in fulfilled their values.
True. All free market capitalism is, is consensuality. Every single time we delude the free market with government we sacrafice consent to be replaced with force and tyranny. This is the wonder of capitalism, for within its capabilities lie hope for all in a non-violent manner. Communes, charities, and indeed rich mansiones are all possible as people will them to be. Capitalism is consent, all other systems are force
See, this is the probem I have with Objectivism, it’s tautological. If you’re using “selfish” in the sense that it fulfils ones values, then essentially every act will be selfish.
No, it’s more of the strawman from the socialists that capitalism denies charitable acts.
This.
I like the example of Wal-Mart right before Katrina hit. If Wal-Mart is a profit-seeking company, why would donate supplies to the would-victims of the hurricane and FEMA? One reason it would do so, is that it would improve its “public relations,” so that the next time someone has to choose between Wal-Mart and some other mega store, that someone might say, “hey, Wal-Mart helped the victims of Katrina and FEMA, I want to shop there instead.”
At its root, this is a discussion about incentives, which consistently seems to be the disconnect point between socialists and libertarians.
Charity without incentive, or in contrast to contradictory incentives can only be enforced with violence.
I am sure there are many socialists would think it is fine to force Walmart to assist at gunpoint, but not ok if they do it and reap a reward in the form of increased reputation.
In all cases, as repetitive as it may be, it is necessary to point out the gun in the room. Keep pointing out the gun in the room. People must reject socialism if they reject violence.
I agree. Empathy for others is not on the philosophical level, though, in my experience. It can’t be taught, but is usually a mentality of authentically sensitive people. Usually it takes a high degree of self-awareness to see helplessness in others and want to genuinely help them. Because their pain is something we ourselves feel, having a common bond. Whether it is poverty, victims of war, refugees, people in natural disasters, etc. It amazes me the degree to which people watch the news and are not sickened or saddened by the treatment of war and other disasters.
Whether left wing or right or libertarian or whatever… I find that people either understand other people and have genuine connection to them… or create abstract theories that allow someone else to deal with it. Some type of mechanism liek the market or the state or God’s divine hand or whatever. None seem to be opposed to other people in general. Nor does their philosophy convince them of their supposed relation to others. Most likely their theories, in substitution for actual relations to others, helps them lay their head down at night.
In a free and open society one cannot escape profiting from others’ misfortunes when one gives to charity. It may be looked down upon if one is driven entirely by selfishness but trying to prevent this is even more unethical.
By a free and open society I mean a liberal society with a liberal state. A liberal state is where the community recognised the natural trait of man that he does not like to be told what to do by others. In this state one is reasonably protected from coercion of others. There is a place for a central government but its major functions are limited to protecting the personal private sphere of individuals from coercion and reducing transaction costs. Reducing transaction costs means reducing cost of trade. This may mean reducing cost of risk of trade by ensuring proper enforcement of contracts, or creating standards like a measurement system. The society in such a state still looks after the needy by mandatory contributions from the rest. But provision is only the minimum which ensures that coercion is minimised. This prevents extreme hardship of fellow man and also protects the general society from acts of desperation (e.g. food riots etc.).
In such liberal state one may not be forced to contribute to help the needy beyond stopping starvation. This means that if one does contribute to charity it is more likely to be a show of genuine, and more importantly voluntary, compassion.
A voluntary contribution to charity in a liberal state will obviously improve one’s standing in the community. This is because the gift to the needy would be more likely to be genuine show of compassion and mercy if one does not obviously boast about it. Naturally man values those who are willing to help him and ask for nothing back in return. However the receiver of charity may be less impressed by the gift if he found out that the charitable contribution was made for selfish reasons, like trying to improve his standing in a community which values selflessness. At the very least if one gives to charity only to improve his standing it is no longer compassion. At worst one may say that one is in fact is profiting from someone else’s misfortune. Of course this is an oversimplification since people would be able to, to a large degree, judge when charity is genuine and when not.
However profiting from someone’s misfortune is not necessarily ‘bad’, at least from a materialistic point of view. It does not hurt the giver or the receiver but benefits both. The giver profits from his increased standing in the community. The receiver’s position is obviously helped out because of the hand out. This kind of an improvement where both parties benefit while no one is made worse off is called Pareto-improvement. However there is still the question of ethics. One may argue that it is always improper to profit from someone else’s misfortune and the state should concern itself to make the situation more ethical.
One possibility is banning all charitable giving. This would be impossible to enforce. People would still find a way to give to others. More importantly a ban on charity would be unnatural as it interferes with a basic natural trait of man to show compassion and mercy. This solution seems to even more unethical (whatever that means) than the unethical situation it is trying to resolve.
A more reasonable solution may lie in making all charitable giving secret. This would mean that the giver no longer has any selfish incentive to give to charity and all charity contributions would be genuine. However if the incentive is lost many people would stop contributing to charity and many needy would be worse off. It is also somewhat questionable if forcing people to make their contributions secret is in itself all that ethical. This solution may end up hurting the poor and the needy for the benefit of allowing few moralists to sleep easier.
Another possibility may be to allow the state to take from the well off and give to the poor like Robin Hood did. But forcing people to give in such a way is hardly ethical and constitutes robbery. This solution looses all traits of compassion and mercy and imposes on the natural freedom to choose not to give. This solution seems to be most unethical. From a materialistic point of view it does benefit the poor the most because the state can rob the rich to a very large extent and make the poor as rich as it pleases.
A theoretical solution may be to stop people from thinking selfishly or to make people stop regarding mercy and compassion as a virtue. This would require a vast social engineering project which of course would impose on individuals’ natural make up. This would be tyranny.
It seems that there are no ethical solutions to the unethical situation where one profits from another’s misfortune but falsely calls it compassion. All the solutions seem to be even more unethical. It seems that the best thing to do is simply let people be people and let them make their own judgment what is ethical and unethical, what they should do and not do.
This is slightly off topic, so I apologize in advance, but I have to ask…
If
Then how can
be justified?
Oh, and welcome to Mises!
How will that minimal liberal state be financed?
You looked at it from every angle except that of the poor suffering man. He is bleeding to death on the street, victim of a drive by. A doctor comes along and says “$1,000 and I’ll give you a transfusion.” Dying man nods yes.
The indignant crowd pushes the Doctor away. How dare he benefit from another’s misfortune!
“OK OK I’ll do it for free just this once,” says the Doc. “No, you wicked man, that is still benefiting from another’s misfortune.”
“Yeah, the heartless b.”, says the dying man with his last breath.
a liberal state is not anarchy. a liberal state is not absence of all taxes. there are very good arguments for some functions of a liberal government. many people over the years have pointed out this. lets take Hayek for example. i presume all of you have read constitution of liberty. look to chapter 19 where hayek talks about this provision of a minimum. what is important is that we are not perfectly unconcerned with fellow man so we provide a minimum for the needy. we also do so to protect society against acts of desperation as i have mentioned before. this provision is of course not arbitrary but is means tested and at every step of the way the individual is encouraged to help himself. for example the pension system should be funded and run through private competitive firms.
So what you’re saying is that you’re ok with aggression so long as you get to choose how much and where it goes?
“It is anti-capitalistic to give money away” is not a myth, it is a self-contradictory statement.
Capitalism refers to ownership. Whatever one owns, he may keep, trade, sell or give away – or simply destroy. Any judgement, therefore, of someone else’s disposition of his capital – for example, by perjoratively referring the act as anti-capitalistic – is a denial of the legitimaticy of capitalism. If one cannot dispose of an asset in any way one so pleases, then he by definition does not own it.
Self-interest refers to motivation. Every motivation is self-motivation. One cannot motivate another; he may, however, influence by word or deed another’s motivation. Now, one can coerce another to do or not do or to do differently, but that is not motivation, it is the usurpation of another’s ownership rights (sometimes referred to theft).
But one will never do anything voluntarily that does not serve one’s self. That an action also serves another is a derivative of self-interest (a number of derivatives are mentioned in other responses above).
“Altruism does not exist in any other form than as than that of disguise” (Me)
“Charity is a morally corrupt and corrupting practice. If the giver is not corrupt in the innitiation of a charitable act, he will become so. If the receiver is not corrupt in accepting charity, he will become so. And corruption to both will escalate with repitition.” (ibid)
That said, coming to the aid of someone in dire straits not of his own making (for example, giving or obtaining emergency medical aid to a robbed and beaten Samaritan) does not constitute charity, it constitutes doing for someone as one would like to have done to themselves – self-interest, no?.
“Is it not a pity that the followers of Jesus act ever so much more like Judas than like Jesus?” (ibid)
NOTE: The quotes above have been made up as I went along.
See my Wal-Mart example: A Myth that Must be Destroyed - #8 by DanielMuffinburg
it is utopian to think that it is possible to perfectly protect the personal private sphere of individuals and still live in a community. if one wants to be perfectly left alone one will need to be living alone on top of a mountain. to protect individuals from coercion does require some coercion in itself. classical liberal thinkers from locke, hume up to j s mill, hayek and mises all recognised this. what they mostly said was how to minimise and limit that coercion.
its not just “treat others how you want yourself to be treated” but also the fact that one gets personal satisfaction from helping others because one can then have a clear conscience. this however is still self interest.