I'd mount a much simpler defence. Band-aids are good! And they're especially good when your predecessors have been pushing for radical surgery for over a century without success.
Your choice isn't "philanthropy or socialism", your choice is "philanthropy or no philanthropy."
An insightful piece! While I strongly agree with your conclusion, I have a slight concern with the argument made in the essay. The way you define a "perfect government," it is not necessarily the case that the maximum politically allowable amount of taxation or even that majority-supported viewpoints would dictate what a government could do. Because you define "perfect government" to be any conception of a perfect government a viewer might have, this could include more paternalistic views on the role of government. There are many that would argue that it is the governments role to step in when individuals on their own are not acting morally.
I really appreciated your point about people having differing morals, such that an individual may not agree with the majority that is represented in government. While this is a strong point and my primary reason to support your conclusion, this argument only works if one can first argue that a perfect government should not be up to the reader but instead necessarily listens to its people.
It’s a strong case—but I still can’t shake the feeling that if a system only works because private citizens keep plugging its moral gaps, maybe we’re not describing a perfect system. We’re describing a tolerable one, patched with good intentions.
I guess I don't see how we can have a combination of 1) A democratic government and 2) a pluralistic citizenry who don't want to be taxed into poverty and not have gaps left to fill by private individuals!
That makes sense, and I think that’s part of what unsettles me. If pluralism, democracy, and basic human nature always leave moral gaps, maybe “perfect” government just means learning to live with those limits. That doesn’t weaken your case. It sharpens it.
Thanks for bringing up factory farming - that was my very first reaction to the title.
>there’s only enough resources on Earth to give everyone $22,500 and no more.
You don't mean this in absolute, forever terms, right? With development, trade, continued efficiency gains, etc., etc., everyone could make more than this.
Nope not in forever terms at all, just trying to get across how many resources we’ve currently got. I think a lot of people have a mistaken idea that there are enough resources right this second to give everyone an American middle-class lifestyle if we could just distribute them well.
I'd mount a much simpler defence. Band-aids are good! And they're especially good when your predecessors have been pushing for radical surgery for over a century without success.
Your choice isn't "philanthropy or socialism", your choice is "philanthropy or no philanthropy."
An insightful piece! While I strongly agree with your conclusion, I have a slight concern with the argument made in the essay. The way you define a "perfect government," it is not necessarily the case that the maximum politically allowable amount of taxation or even that majority-supported viewpoints would dictate what a government could do. Because you define "perfect government" to be any conception of a perfect government a viewer might have, this could include more paternalistic views on the role of government. There are many that would argue that it is the governments role to step in when individuals on their own are not acting morally.
I really appreciated your point about people having differing morals, such that an individual may not agree with the majority that is represented in government. While this is a strong point and my primary reason to support your conclusion, this argument only works if one can first argue that a perfect government should not be up to the reader but instead necessarily listens to its people.
Anyways, great post as always and thank you!
It’s a strong case—but I still can’t shake the feeling that if a system only works because private citizens keep plugging its moral gaps, maybe we’re not describing a perfect system. We’re describing a tolerable one, patched with good intentions.
I guess I don't see how we can have a combination of 1) A democratic government and 2) a pluralistic citizenry who don't want to be taxed into poverty and not have gaps left to fill by private individuals!
That makes sense, and I think that’s part of what unsettles me. If pluralism, democracy, and basic human nature always leave moral gaps, maybe “perfect” government just means learning to live with those limits. That doesn’t weaken your case. It sharpens it.
Yup and that's basically what I believe! It's a weird tragic aspect of life. I wrote more about it here. https://andymasley.substack.com/p/liberalism
Thanks for bringing up factory farming - that was my very first reaction to the title.
>there’s only enough resources on Earth to give everyone $22,500 and no more.
You don't mean this in absolute, forever terms, right? With development, trade, continued efficiency gains, etc., etc., everyone could make more than this.
Nope not in forever terms at all, just trying to get across how many resources we’ve currently got. I think a lot of people have a mistaken idea that there are enough resources right this second to give everyone an American middle-class lifestyle if we could just distribute them well.
Perhaps related:
Russ Roberts "A Positive Model of Private Charity and Public Transfers
Russell D. Roberts", Journal of Political Economy, 1984
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261212
There's probably much more current papers out there (can trace forward on google scholar), but I just happened to have heard of this paper.