Saturday, April 02, 2011
Immoral Benevolence
The following appeared in the Letters to the Editor in “The Lutheran” for April, 2011.
An obvious area where hunger can be fought is in better crops and crop production. People seem to ignore the fact that better crops through genetic modifications are adamantly fought by various environmentalists, who often are the same people that will bewail the hunger of the poor of the earth.
This writer displays considerable ignorance about what is required for people to have enough food. Most death from famine today occurs not because of bad weather, but failures of third-world governments to provide for their people. We seem to forget all the cases where food was provided by voluntary organizations and was impounded by corrupt governments to give to their cronies or political allies. We forget all the aid that never reached its destination because countries were so undeveloped that there were no transportation routes. We never seem to get the lesson that the countries that suffer the most from natural disasters are those that have the most oppressive governments, and the least protections of individual rights. The writer fails to acknowledge that the regulations and red-tape of the governments of the free world get in the road of providing aid to others. After all, it has to be done by the “right” organizations in the “right” ways, so the “right” people can get credit.
Private foundations and philanthropic groups do provide development programs, when allowed. However, our government doesn’t just try to break down the barriers in other countries to those efforts, they try to horn in on them. The charitable organizations don’t need the government, but the government certainly needs the charitable organizations to get anything done. But it has to be done the government way. To see the effectiveness of government or government working “with” charitable organizations vs. charitable organizations simply doing their thing, look at the results of Katrina relief. It was not government’s shining hour and, despite the wishes of the writer above, is typical of government efforts. Bureaucracy does not and cannot exercise effective judgment, and the results show it.
The moral errors are far more problematic in the above letter. I have never understood how it is morally correct for the government to take money from people by coercion and then give it to beneficiaries as an act of charity. Despite all the rationalizations, all money that the government has is obtained by overt or covert coercion. Once taxes have been established, all people must pay them under penalty of law. If the money goes to programs that they don’t support, especially ones that run counter to their personal moral code (think abortion, fetal stem cell research) then the money has in effect been stolen or extorted from them. It has been taken and used for purposes of which they do not approve. By the same principle, money taken through taxation that is used to support charitable efforts with which someone does not agree, is money extorted.
The second moral error is directly related to the first. Only at a personal rather than governmental level. There is no morality in coercion. The main reason we discuss Free Will has to do with morality. One must be able to chose to be moral. Where is the morality when one is giving away other people’s wealth that was obtained by coercion? That one obtained it through a government does not sanitize it. That would make an armed robber moral because he/she took the money and gave some to a beggar.
The final error the writer makes is to accuse those who want private individuals to provide philanthropy of not truly being interested in doing so. It is a matter of public record that individuals that believe in personal giving donate far more than those who espouse government programs as a means of charity. People such as Bill Gates give millions a year, and liberal politicians that make great noises about the suffering of others give almost nothing personally. However, they are more than willing to spend tax dollars to do so. It is very tempting to consider that the writer is displaying the attitude that he/she would have when faced with a choice of voluntary giving. It is often easy to accuse others of what we don’t wish to acknowledge in ourselves.
In “A better way” (March, page 49), the writer says Christians should “help the poor” but contends philanthropic groups are better at it than a government, which is “sinful” with waste. If, indeed, voluntary giving were all we needed to cure world hunger, the problem would be solved – but isn’t. A government can make the world a better place to live through development programs and working with charitable organizations to cure world hunger. We can do better than the “Peter Pan” philosophy that amounts to “I’ve got mine – you’ll get yours if I feel like it.”The writer cares about world hunger. That is obvious. To that degree he/she may be called benevolent. However, in discussing the desired remedy, the writer commits errors of fact, and at least two moral errors.
An obvious area where hunger can be fought is in better crops and crop production. People seem to ignore the fact that better crops through genetic modifications are adamantly fought by various environmentalists, who often are the same people that will bewail the hunger of the poor of the earth.
This writer displays considerable ignorance about what is required for people to have enough food. Most death from famine today occurs not because of bad weather, but failures of third-world governments to provide for their people. We seem to forget all the cases where food was provided by voluntary organizations and was impounded by corrupt governments to give to their cronies or political allies. We forget all the aid that never reached its destination because countries were so undeveloped that there were no transportation routes. We never seem to get the lesson that the countries that suffer the most from natural disasters are those that have the most oppressive governments, and the least protections of individual rights. The writer fails to acknowledge that the regulations and red-tape of the governments of the free world get in the road of providing aid to others. After all, it has to be done by the “right” organizations in the “right” ways, so the “right” people can get credit.
Private foundations and philanthropic groups do provide development programs, when allowed. However, our government doesn’t just try to break down the barriers in other countries to those efforts, they try to horn in on them. The charitable organizations don’t need the government, but the government certainly needs the charitable organizations to get anything done. But it has to be done the government way. To see the effectiveness of government or government working “with” charitable organizations vs. charitable organizations simply doing their thing, look at the results of Katrina relief. It was not government’s shining hour and, despite the wishes of the writer above, is typical of government efforts. Bureaucracy does not and cannot exercise effective judgment, and the results show it.
The moral errors are far more problematic in the above letter. I have never understood how it is morally correct for the government to take money from people by coercion and then give it to beneficiaries as an act of charity. Despite all the rationalizations, all money that the government has is obtained by overt or covert coercion. Once taxes have been established, all people must pay them under penalty of law. If the money goes to programs that they don’t support, especially ones that run counter to their personal moral code (think abortion, fetal stem cell research) then the money has in effect been stolen or extorted from them. It has been taken and used for purposes of which they do not approve. By the same principle, money taken through taxation that is used to support charitable efforts with which someone does not agree, is money extorted.
The second moral error is directly related to the first. Only at a personal rather than governmental level. There is no morality in coercion. The main reason we discuss Free Will has to do with morality. One must be able to chose to be moral. Where is the morality when one is giving away other people’s wealth that was obtained by coercion? That one obtained it through a government does not sanitize it. That would make an armed robber moral because he/she took the money and gave some to a beggar.
The final error the writer makes is to accuse those who want private individuals to provide philanthropy of not truly being interested in doing so. It is a matter of public record that individuals that believe in personal giving donate far more than those who espouse government programs as a means of charity. People such as Bill Gates give millions a year, and liberal politicians that make great noises about the suffering of others give almost nothing personally. However, they are more than willing to spend tax dollars to do so. It is very tempting to consider that the writer is displaying the attitude that he/she would have when faced with a choice of voluntary giving. It is often easy to accuse others of what we don’t wish to acknowledge in ourselves.
// posted by Bill @ 11:28 AM 
