WEBVTT NOTE 18. The Non-Contributor to Charity 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.540 Chapter 18 The Non-Contributor to Charity 2 00:00:06.540 --> 00:00:12.800 We are beset by the view that it is blessed to give to charity, that it is also virtuous, 3 00:00:12.800 --> 00:00:18.720 seemly, good, fair, respectable, altruistic and endearing. 4 00:00:18.720 --> 00:00:25.400 In like manner, the refusal to give to charity is met with contempt, derision, incredulity 5 00:00:25.400 --> 00:00:27.020 and horror. 6 00:00:27.020 --> 00:00:32.780 The person who refuses to contribute to charity is considered a pariah. 7 00:00:32.780 --> 00:00:38.420 This sociological imperative is supported by legions of beggars, fundraisers, clerics 8 00:00:38.420 --> 00:00:40.800 and other needy groups. 9 00:00:40.800 --> 00:00:46.460 We are exhorted from the pulpit and the media, by the Hare Krishnas and the panhandlers, 10 00:00:46.460 --> 00:00:52.260 the flower people and the March of Dimes children, the cripples, the helpless, the impoverished 11 00:00:52.260 --> 00:00:55.280 and the beaten down. 12 00:00:55.280 --> 00:01:01.020 Refusing to charity is not in itself evil. When it is a voluntary decision on the part 13 00:01:01.020 --> 00:01:07.220 of responsible adults, it does not violate an individual's rights. Yet there are dangers 14 00:01:07.220 --> 00:01:13.620 in charity, and compelling reasons for refusing to contribute to it. In addition, there are 15 00:01:13.620 --> 00:01:20.020 serious flaws in the moral philosophy upon which charity is based. 16 00:01:20.020 --> 00:01:23.140 The Evils of Charity 17 00:01:23.140 --> 00:01:28.580 One of the great evils of charity, and one of the most cogent reasons for refusing to 18 00:01:28.580 --> 00:01:34.820 contribute to it, is that it interferes with the survival of the human species. 19 00:01:34.820 --> 00:01:40.020 According to the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest, those organisms most 20 00:01:40.020 --> 00:01:46.020 able to exist in a given environment will be naturally selected, by showing a greater 21 00:02:16.020 --> 00:02:18.740 and the Species Thrives. 22 00:02:18.740 --> 00:02:25.100 Some contend that the law of natural selection does not apply to modern civilization. 23 00:02:25.100 --> 00:02:30.460 Critics point to artificial kidney machines, open heart surgery, and other scientific and 24 00:02:30.460 --> 00:02:36.420 medical breakthroughs, and argue that Darwin's survival law has been preempted by modern 25 00:02:36.420 --> 00:02:38.100 science. 26 00:02:38.100 --> 00:02:44.740 For people with diseases and genetic drawbacks, which in the past led to an early death, today 27 00:02:44.740 --> 00:02:47.700 Live On to Reproduce. 28 00:02:47.700 --> 00:02:53.260 This does not, however, demonstrate that the Darwinian law is inapplicable. 29 00:02:53.260 --> 00:02:57.740 Modern scientific breakthroughs have not repealed Darwin's law. 30 00:02:57.740 --> 00:03:02.860 They have only changed the specific cases to which it applies. 31 00:03:02.860 --> 00:03:08.520 In the past, the characteristic antithetical to human survival might have been a defective 32 00:03:08.520 --> 00:03:11.220 heart or poor kidneys. 33 00:03:11.220 --> 00:03:16.740 with the advent of modern medical advances, medical failures are likely to become less 34 00:03:16.740 --> 00:03:21.300 and less important as grounds for natural selection. 35 00:03:21.300 --> 00:03:28.460 What will become more and more important is the ability to live on a crowded planet. 36 00:03:28.460 --> 00:03:34.460 Characteristics opposed to survival may include an allergy to smoke, excessive argumentativeness 37 00:03:34.460 --> 00:03:36.740 or bellicosity. 38 00:03:36.740 --> 00:03:42.820 Such characteristics will tend to lessen a person's ability to survive to adulthood. 39 00:03:42.820 --> 00:03:48.700 These characteristics lessen the person's chances of maintaining a situation, marriage, 40 00:03:48.700 --> 00:03:52.100 employment, in which reproduction is possible. 41 00:03:52.100 --> 00:03:57.860 Thus, if the Darwinian laws are allowed to work themselves out, such negative traits 42 00:03:57.860 --> 00:03:59.700 will tend to disappear. 43 00:03:59.700 --> 00:04:06.220 But, if charity is extended, these harmful traits will be carried over to the next generation. 44 00:04:06.740 --> 00:04:17.740 While charity of this type is undeniably harmful, when it is private, it is limited in scope by a type of Darwinian law that applies to the givers. 45 00:04:17.740 --> 00:04:28.740 They come to bear some of the harm they cause. Thus they are led, as if by Adam Smith's invisible hand, to cut back on their giving. 46 00:04:28.740 --> 00:04:36.220 For example, if parental charity takes the form of sparing the rod and spoiling the child, 47 00:04:36.220 --> 00:04:41.380 some of the harmful effects of this charity rebound upon the parents. 48 00:04:41.380 --> 00:04:46.900 Being on the receiving end of spoiled children tends to temper the giver. 49 00:04:46.900 --> 00:04:52.380 Many of the parents who supported their adult hippie children throughout the sixties discontinued 50 00:04:52.380 --> 00:04:57.860 such support when they themselves suffered from its harmful effects. 51 00:04:57.860 --> 00:05:05.140 The charity also has a built-in limitation because any given private fortune is circumscribed. 52 00:05:05.140 --> 00:05:09.300 The case of public charity is ominously different. 53 00:05:09.300 --> 00:05:14.100 In public charity, all natural barriers are virtually absent. 54 00:05:14.100 --> 00:05:20.620 It is a rare case indeed when public charity is reduced because of its harmful effects. 55 00:05:20.620 --> 00:05:26.380 The fortune at the government's disposal is only limited by its desire for taxes and its 56 00:05:26.380 --> 00:05:36.980 A case in point is the American foreign aid program of the 1950s and 1960s. 57 00:05:36.980 --> 00:05:42.540 The government of the United States paid American farmers more than the market price for their 58 00:05:42.540 --> 00:05:49.620 produce, thus creating gigantic surpluses, for which still more money had to be allotted. 59 00:05:49.620 --> 00:05:54.740 Large quantities of this produce were then sent to countries such as India, where the 60 00:05:54.740 --> 00:06:01.140 The domestic farm industry was virtually ruined by this subsidized importation. 61 00:06:01.140 --> 00:06:06.060 Other detrimental effects of governmental charity have been documented by a number of 62 00:06:06.060 --> 00:06:08.100 social scientists. 63 00:06:08.100 --> 00:06:14.500 G. William Domhoff, in his book, The Higher Circles, shows that charitable institutions, 64 00:06:14.500 --> 00:06:19.900 such as workmen's compensation, collective bargaining in labor, unemployment insurance 65 00:06:19.900 --> 00:06:25.900 Taxes and welfare programs were begun not by advocates of the poor, as is universally 66 00:06:25.900 --> 00:06:33.180 accepted, but by the rich. These programs promote their own class interests. The aim 67 00:06:33.180 --> 00:06:39.620 of this state corporate charity system is not to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, 68 00:06:39.620 --> 00:06:45.260 but to buy up the potential leaders of the poor and tie them to the hegemony of the ruling 69 00:06:45.260 --> 00:06:52.140 and Class, while maintaining an intellectual class determined to convince an unwary public 70 00:06:52.140 --> 00:06:56.380 that government charity actually benefits them. 71 00:06:56.380 --> 00:07:02.500 In like manner, Francis Piven and Richard Cloward point out in Regulating the Poor that 72 00:07:02.500 --> 00:07:09.020 the charitable institution of welfare serves not mainly to aid the poor, but rather to 73 00:07:09.020 --> 00:07:10.860 suppress them. 74 00:07:10.860 --> 00:07:17.860 The modus operandi here is to allow the welfare roles to increase, not in times of great need, 75 00:07:17.860 --> 00:07:24.740 but in times of social upheaval, and to decrease the welfare roles, not in times of plenty, 76 00:07:24.740 --> 00:07:27.100 but in times of social tranquility. 77 00:07:27.100 --> 00:07:35.300 Thus, the welfare system is a kind of bread and circus method of controlling the masses. 78 00:07:35.300 --> 00:07:39.180 The Philosophy Behind Charity 79 00:07:39.180 --> 00:07:45.320 With these problems there are those who view charity as a blessed state and consider contributions 80 00:07:45.320 --> 00:07:47.640 a moral obligation. 81 00:07:47.640 --> 00:07:51.780 Such people would make charity compulsory if they could. 82 00:07:51.780 --> 00:07:58.540 If, however, an act is made compulsory, it is not charity, for charity is defined as 83 00:07:58.540 --> 00:08:00.760 voluntary giving. 84 00:08:00.760 --> 00:08:05.760 If an individual is forced to give, he is not a contributor to charity. 85 00:08:05.760 --> 00:08:08.600 He is the victim of a robbery. 86 00:08:08.600 --> 00:08:14.460 The crux of charity for those who would wish it to be made compulsory, the laws of logic 87 00:08:14.460 --> 00:08:21.680 and linguistics notwithstanding, is that there is a duty, an obligation, a moral imperative 88 00:08:21.680 --> 00:08:24.960 for all to give to the less fortunate. 89 00:08:24.960 --> 00:08:30.120 This rests on the premise that we are each our brother's keepers. 90 00:08:30.120 --> 00:08:35.780 This philosophy, however, contradicts a basic premise of morality, namely that it should 91 00:08:35.780 --> 00:08:41.340 would always be at least possible for a person to do what is moral. 92 00:08:41.340 --> 00:08:47.220 If there are two people in different geographical areas who are in dire need of John's aid 93 00:08:47.220 --> 00:08:53.220 at the same time, it would be impossible for John to help both of them. 94 00:08:53.220 --> 00:08:59.100 If John cannot help both needy people, and since helping both is a requirement of the 95 00:08:59.100 --> 00:09:07.420 and the Brothers Keeper morality, then, clearly, with the best intentions, John cannot be moral. 96 00:09:07.420 --> 00:09:13.740 And if, according to any given theory of ethics, a well-intentioned person cannot be moral, 97 00:09:13.740 --> 00:09:16.600 the theory is incorrect. 98 00:09:16.600 --> 00:09:22.340 The second basic flaw in the Brothers Keeper moral view is that it logically calls for 99 00:09:22.340 --> 00:09:28.420 absolute income equality, whether or not its proponents realize this. 100 00:09:28.420 --> 00:09:34.820 Remember, this morality preaches that it is the moral duty of those who have more to share 101 00:09:34.820 --> 00:09:43.160 with those who have less. Adam, who has $100, shares with Richard, who has only $5, by giving 102 00:09:43.160 --> 00:09:52.260 Richard $10. Adam now has $90 and Richard $15. One might think that Adam has followed 103 00:09:52.260 --> 00:09:58.080 the dictates of the sharing philosophy. However, this philosophy states that it is the duty 104 00:09:58.080 --> 00:10:05.560 of all people to share with the less fortunate, and Adam still has more than Richard. 105 00:10:05.560 --> 00:10:10.680 If Adam wishes to act morally according to the Brother's Keeper moral view, he will 106 00:10:10.680 --> 00:10:13.460 have to share again with Richard. 107 00:10:13.460 --> 00:10:19.400 The sharing can end only when Richard no longer has less than Adam. 108 00:10:19.400 --> 00:10:25.280 The doctrine of absolute income equality, a necessary consequence of the Brother's Keeper 109 00:10:25.280 --> 00:10:35.280 The Brother's Keeper philosophy will admit of no prosperity for anyone over and above the meager pittance the most helpless individual is able to amass. 110 00:10:35.280 --> 00:10:45.280 Thus, the Brother's Keeper philosophy is in direct and irreconcilable opposition to the natural ambition to improve one's lot. 111 00:10:45.280 --> 00:10:53.280 Believers in it are torn by ultimately conflicting views, and the result, naturally enough, is hypocrisy. 112 00:10:53.280 --> 00:11:11.280 How else can one describe people who claim to be practitioners of the Brothers Keeper philosophy and yet have well-stocked pantries, a television, a stereo set, a car, jewelry and real estate, while in many parts of the world people face starvation? 113 00:11:11.280 --> 00:11:21.280 They dogmatically affirm their commitment to equality, yet deny that their lush wealth is in any way contradictory to this commitment. 114 00:11:21.280 --> 00:11:33.280 One explanation offered is that a certain amount of wealth and well-being is necessary for them to maintain their jobs, which allows them to earn the money to contribute to the less fortunate. 115 00:11:33.280 --> 00:11:47.280 Clearly it is true that the brother's keeper must maintain his own ability to keep his brothers. His demise due to starvation is not called for by the brother's keeper philosophy. 116 00:11:47.280 --> 00:11:56.280 The wealthy brother's keeper thus explains himself as being in a position similar to the slave owned by the rational slave owner. 117 00:11:56.280 --> 00:12:05.280 For the slave must be at least minimally healthy and comfortable, even contented, if he or she is to produce for the owner. 118 00:12:05.280 --> 00:12:14.280 The wealthy brother's keeper has, in effect, enslaved himself for the benefit of the downtrodden whom he aids. 119 00:12:14.280 --> 00:12:20.280 He has amassed the amount which he needs in order to best serve his fellow man. 120 00:12:20.280 --> 00:12:29.280 His wealth and standard of living are just what a rational, profit-maximizing slave owner would allow his slave to enjoy. 121 00:12:29.280 --> 00:12:40.280 Everything in his possession is enjoyed only to the extent and for the sole purpose of increasing and or maintaining his economic ability 122 00:12:40.280 --> 00:12:46.680 to help those who are less fortunate than he is, according to this argument. 123 00:12:46.680 --> 00:12:52.080 It might be barely possible that a brother's keeper living in a garret could be telling 124 00:12:52.080 --> 00:12:56.520 the truth when he explains his possessions in these terms. 125 00:12:56.520 --> 00:13:01.960 But what of the average person who claims to practice the brother's keeper morality, 126 00:13:01.960 --> 00:13:08.200 the civil servant earning $17,000 a year and living in a cooperative apartment in New York 127 00:13:08.200 --> 00:13:09.640 City? 128 00:13:09.640 --> 00:13:15.440 It can hardly be seriously contended that the possessions he has collected are necessary 129 00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:21.040 for his productivity, especially when these holdings could be sold for money which could 130 00:13:21.040 --> 00:13:24.840 significantly aid the downtrodden. 131 00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:31.560 Far from being a blessed activity, contributing to charity can have harmful effects. 132 00:13:31.560 --> 00:13:38.160 In addition, the moral theory upon which charity rests is riddled with contradictions and makes 133 00:13:38.160 --> 00:13:40.960 It's hypocrites of those who are pressured by it.