The son of Warren Buffett is out with an OP-ED in the NYT here.
Philanthropy has become the “it” vehicle to level the playing field and has generated a growing number of gatherings, workshops and affinity groups.
As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.
But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else is further locked into a system that will not allow the true flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful and fulfilled life.
I pretty much agree with Buffett junior here.
"Charity" or philanthropy are no substitutes for just and righteous economic policies imposed via the authority we humans can grant to our institutions of civil government.
Buffett fils has it right.
ReplyDeleteCharity cannot replace government, which is what the nut cases want to do, so that rich people can give to the causes and people that they want to support instead of government being for the people, by the people and of the people.
Economic liberalism aka neoliberalism is antithetical to political liberalism aka democracy.
Economic liberalism aka neoliberalism is antithetical to political liberalism aka democracy.
ReplyDeleteYes, and I find it quite difficult to explain. Most people seem to think that "neo-liberal" must be the opposite of "neo-conservative," which it's not, and trying to explain the latter makes them even more confused.
Matt, I agree with you that charity and volunteerism is by no means the solution to institutionalized wealth disparity. In a comment I made the other day recommending that libertarians expand their "social love" it's not because I think that's "the solution." I'm thinking in terms of polarities or possible synergies. As an example from Russian history, Russia was able to preserve an element of openness and cosmopolitanism as long as the free city of Novgorod remained unconquered. When Novgorod fell, the Tartars were able to consolidate their power and institute a centralized totalitarianism.
So, my thought is, what's the proper role of the libertarian? Maybe to serve as some sort of counterbalance to the tendencies for tartar-ism that we've seen proliferate in the last decade. There is much valuable work that could be done in that line that doesn't include arguing about some old stick-in-the-mud like Mises and his grudge against Keynes.
Completely agree with Mr Buffett, and yourself Tom.
ReplyDeleteI've said on here before that I have a dislike for charities, the need for charities are the sign of a failure of government. The government has within its power the ability to mobilise the resources necessary to render charities obsolete, and imo that would be a great stride forward.
David,
ReplyDeleteTom made a comment earlier today about how he has seen "self-authority" imposed and this now has me thinking...
Maybe this "self-authority" is what is also known as 'totalitarianism' or something like this tartarism you point out ... and the human libertarians are really at war with this concept... not "authority" as imo we havent really had human "authority" imposed in almost 2,000 years here in the west.... it has been gone from the scene...
The Greeks had this word 'exousia' which has that syllable "exo" in it which means 'from without' or thereabouts... it is a word used often in the Greek scriptures and is often translated there as 'authority', but with the 'exo' in there it cant be the same thing that Tom sees as "self-authority" which implies "within" or 'endo'... so 'self-authority' is technically an oxymoron... doesnt really make sense....
Perhaps what libertarians are really fighting is this corrupt concept of "self-authority" which looks like has been imposed for almost all of recorded history or at least almost the last 2 milleniums... which I myself as perhaps a true authoritarian take great exception to also... true authority is 'from without'..
I dont have this 100% yet obviously ... but imo you may be on to something with this concept of 'counterbalance' coming from the libertarians as a constructive force..
But they have been beaten down for so long they may no longer be able to tell the difference between 'self authority' and 'authority' anymore... folks like our Bob R perhaps an extreme example of how extreme a resultant human fear borne out of this corruption can progress...
I'm going to keep thinking about this just some initial thoughts here...
rsp.
But they have been beaten down for so long they may no longer be able to tell the difference between 'self authority' and 'authority' anymore...
ReplyDeleteI think this is often the point being made in the NT. "You people are like a hard in the mouth horse always chafing at the bit, even when the real master appears." So it is also a put-down to say that the Roman soldier understands "the Covenant" better than the people under it because he has unquestioned obedience, even reverence for his military chain of command, whereas they cannot even recognize "the bridegroom" at the wedding feast.
It was said of Jesus that he "spoke like an exousiai not as one of the scribes." This, I think, has to be understood according to the old "chain of being" doctrine. This was last expounded by John Scotus Erigena in the 9th century. Erigena wrote that "man feels as an animal, draws conclusions as a human being, perceives as an angel and intuits as an archangel. Exousiai is the next link up from archangel! In those days distinctions were drawn between everyday thinking and feeling and "higher thoughts." Think of the prophet Isaiah when he has "God" say "Let us reason together." When man got quiet and let his everyday, laundry list thoughts go silent it was felt that "God or at least a higher being speaks in my thoughts." Obviously, we don't make such distinctions today. Thus I think we are all in some perplexity regarding "authority," each from a somewhat different direction.
I have to point out that not all folks who are charitable are trying to one up the others.
ReplyDeleteI still donate to Habitat for Humanity even though the last time I brought some salvaged materials to their store ... my wallet got stolen and credit cards used at the store within minutes.
They would not let me have access to the video either!
D,
ReplyDelete"direction"
Right the 'chain' looks vertical, the Centurion says: 'I too have been set UNDER exousia...' and the Lord corrects Pilate to remind him that 'any exousia you have OVER Me has been given to you from ABOVE...", etc..
My examination of the wording looks like every time exousia is assigned, it originates from ABOVE, unless it is 'given UP'.
So looks like we get it 'from above' and can surrender it 'up'.
I suppose both of these directions are "from without" hence perhaps the 'exo' in exousia...
Goog,
Suggest keep giving as you are called to... people still need affordable housing until we get the bad policy overturned...
But this is a tough issue as if you point out the short comings of charity you run the risk of being painted 'uncharitable' which doesnt look good either.. so I have to give it up to Buffett junior here as he is taking a risk and putting himself out there on a limb here with his crowd...
But charity is like putting a band-aid on a smallpox sore... yes we need the band-aids short term, but somebody also has to be working on methods to quickly slay the virus...
rsp,
"I've said on here before that I have a dislike for charities, the need for charities are the sign of a failure of government. The government has within its power the ability to mobilise the resources necessary to render charities obsolete, and imo that would be a great stride forward."
ReplyDeleteWasn't that tried in the Soviet Union?