Admittedly, solved problems are rare. Quite a few charities at least alleviate problems. Even though it is faith-based, I think the Salvation Army does some real good. Red Cross. Big Brothers. DWB. League of Women Voters.
The original article holds up charitable organizations as a means to make the world a better place. But all the examples I can think of where the human condition improved significantly were due to new technology (birth control, antibiotics), sweeping cultural changes (religious tolerance), or increasing wealth (sanitation, literacy). Charities, on the other hand, typically focus on handouts and lobbying, which may benefit individual aid recipients and rent seekers but rarely seems to do anything about the underlying problem.
So my question is, what is the evidence that such organizations can actually deal with large issues like hunger, disease, poverty, oppression, genocide, and so on? And if there is no track record of success, why do we continue to pin our hopes on them?
I appreciate the original article’s analysis if you’ve already decided that giving resources (money, work, whatever) to non-profits is a desirable and rational use of those resources. Maybe it is, but I’d love to see someone really tackle that issue.
I once heard Rush Limbaugh say something like “In 200 years, capitalism has saved more lives than thousands of years of charity.” I generally dislike the man, but I found it hard to disagree with him there (actually I assume he was probably paraphrasing someone else).
It seems to me that the wealth created through market economies has massively improved living standards unlike anything else. The technological, medical, social, and education advances that contribute to improved health and welfare are greatly accelerated by competition and increased wealth.
Maybe there are areas where charity is more effective than markets, but I’d like to see someone make the argument. Even well-run and well-intentioned charities run the risk of creating dependency and inhibiting local markets.
Could it be that the best use of your time and money is to create as much wealth as possible and keep that wealth circulating through the market (investing and spending)? (And perhaps contributing to lobbying and advocacy efforts that work to spread open markets.)
If anyone knows of a good discussion of this question, please let me know.
So, the Anti-Corn Law League destroyed grain tariffs in Britain and permanently altered the public perception of tariffs in that country compared to the rest of the world (more of the British public correctly see tariffs as a way to screw over customers than as a way to protect domestic jobs).
Those are just the two off the top of my head, but I’m not sure they fit “this kind” of approach. The first one suggests a “do the math” approach to helping people, but also a strong deontologist “this isn’t fair!”, and the second one seems mostly along the same lines. I don’t think SIAI and such are that comparable to Garrison, but perhaps they are.
I guess my questions in response are “can you be more specific by “this kind of approach” and “what are your standards for a ‘major’ problem?”
Can anyone offer a single example of a major, longstanding problem that has been solved by this kind of approach?
Solved by what kind of approach? Organized charity?
How about the polio vaccine? March of Dimes.
Admittedly, solved problems are rare. Quite a few charities at least alleviate problems. Even though it is faith-based, I think the Salvation Army does some real good. Red Cross. Big Brothers. DWB. League of Women Voters.
The original article holds up charitable organizations as a means to make the world a better place. But all the examples I can think of where the human condition improved significantly were due to new technology (birth control, antibiotics), sweeping cultural changes (religious tolerance), or increasing wealth (sanitation, literacy). Charities, on the other hand, typically focus on handouts and lobbying, which may benefit individual aid recipients and rent seekers but rarely seems to do anything about the underlying problem.
So my question is, what is the evidence that such organizations can actually deal with large issues like hunger, disease, poverty, oppression, genocide, and so on? And if there is no track record of success, why do we continue to pin our hopes on them?
This is the question I’d love to see answered.
I appreciate the original article’s analysis if you’ve already decided that giving resources (money, work, whatever) to non-profits is a desirable and rational use of those resources. Maybe it is, but I’d love to see someone really tackle that issue.
I once heard Rush Limbaugh say something like “In 200 years, capitalism has saved more lives than thousands of years of charity.” I generally dislike the man, but I found it hard to disagree with him there (actually I assume he was probably paraphrasing someone else).
It seems to me that the wealth created through market economies has massively improved living standards unlike anything else. The technological, medical, social, and education advances that contribute to improved health and welfare are greatly accelerated by competition and increased wealth.
Maybe there are areas where charity is more effective than markets, but I’d like to see someone make the argument. Even well-run and well-intentioned charities run the risk of creating dependency and inhibiting local markets.
Could it be that the best use of your time and money is to create as much wealth as possible and keep that wealth circulating through the market (investing and spending)? (And perhaps contributing to lobbying and advocacy efforts that work to spread open markets.)
If anyone knows of a good discussion of this question, please let me know.
So, the Anti-Corn Law League destroyed grain tariffs in Britain and permanently altered the public perception of tariffs in that country compared to the rest of the world (more of the British public correctly see tariffs as a way to screw over customers than as a way to protect domestic jobs).
Abolition groups also seem like they should be mentioned, here.
Those are just the two off the top of my head, but I’m not sure they fit “this kind” of approach. The first one suggests a “do the math” approach to helping people, but also a strong deontologist “this isn’t fair!”, and the second one seems mostly along the same lines. I don’t think SIAI and such are that comparable to Garrison, but perhaps they are.
I guess my questions in response are “can you be more specific by “this kind of approach” and “what are your standards for a ‘major’ problem?”