http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm
What do you guys think of this article.
He does not advocate theft (i.e. taxation and redistribution), at least in this article, but instead he just thinks that individuals themselves should give their money away.
However, what I am more concerned about are the actual consequences of such charity. What are the unintended consequences such a solution?
The consequences depend on how you do it.
If you overfeed people and allow them to reproduce at natural rates (8 kids/family) the world will outgrow its capacity.
If you educate them and perhaps make a contract with them not to have so many kids, then you can feed them and save them.
Though idk what utilitarians say about population growth. Is there more utility in a world with 6 billion vs 12 billion people? Utility can’t be measured empirically I think you just gotta go with your gut [8-)]
Whatever happened to giving people jobs?
End all laws restricting freedom of contract and freedom of travel (and freedom of trade obviously) and the problem is solved completely.
True, but the question is a hypothetical what if. If people chose to give a third of thier income to the poor what would happen? I do not think that such a scenario is the case.
If we gave many poor people money to live a life where all necessities were catered for, then what would be the point of them working and becoming productive members of society?
Thas what I’m saying. It depends how you do it. Giving them food is necessary for them to live to work tomorrow though.
This is the key question to ask of most “solutions” to most “problems.”
Hypothetically by giving $20 to poor person A instead of to car salesman B, you don’t get the house built for poor person A that would have been built by Carpenter C, using the capitol saved by business man D, who earned his money selling a suit to salesman B.
I see this as a variation of the broken window fallacy. It is easy to make a case for doing something with immediate benefits when you don’t have to see the potential drawbacks…
I thought more people meant more resources through that wonderful thing we call the division of labour and specialization? Of course, that would require that the poor were eventually capable of contributing to the world.
I don’t see aggreagate, macroeconomic wealth increasing for if production and saving is the process to wealth generation than the act of giving away money wouldn’t do anything to, in general, benefit the world. But I think it would benefit (in a zero sum way) the recipients of wealth.
There’s only so many farms that can be tilled in the world.
Unskilled labor means unskilled.
I am a subjectivist when it comes to the way in which people spend thier money. And so why is it that I should be critical of charity, which is essentially voluntary like any other transaction.
True snowflake, and troutndeer’s argument implies that demand could increase supply when it is the other way around in the aggregate.
It can. Why is that, in real terms, petrol is about as cheap as it has ever been, along with a whole variety of other precious metals?
Or, why is it that food is cheaper and more plentiful now than it was when there were only 1 billion people on earth? Profit incentivizes entreprenuers to find more of what customers demand.
Right but I actually think technology has more to do with this…
Right, but why do entreprenuers invest in technology? To meet customers demands or to produce more.
The unintended consequences are a bunch of leeches who refuse to work for themselves and instead enjoy living off of others. Even more harmful would be a loss of incentives for African governments to reform and embrace capitalism.
A better solution would be to cut off all aid to Africa and instead allow free trade, investment, and hard work bring prosperity to Africans.
I think Peter Singer is a wee bit of a plonker.