About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, July 25, 2014 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

An act of charity can also be viewed as yet another voluntary transaction where each side expects to be bettered in some way by doing it. The recipient will have this money that they need, and the giver will feel a sense of satisfaction. In both cases we are talking about a much more psychological and emotional set of positives than would be key components in non-charitable voluntary transactions. In those, like buying a meal at a restaurant, the restaurant owner expects to make a profit and further his career, and the diner expects to get a good meal that is worth more, to him, than he is paying.

 

Because the voluntary non-charitable transaction is more concrete and material than the charitable act, it is easier to measure values and expectations can be resolved (or disappointed) more obviously. For example, it the menu has a photo of a large, juicy cheeseburger, and describes it as having half of a pound of beef, but comes as a tiny thing that barely has any meat, that failure of expectations, if it were done intentionally, or knowingly, would be fraud. I mention this because in a charitable transaction expectations and honesty are just as prevalent, but not as obvious. Each party to a charitable contribution should be as explicit and honest as they can be about what would otherwise go as unstated and unknown terms of an 'agreement' (I put 'agreement' in quotes because this is where the unstated can easily be the unagreed upon).

 

The donor should state why he is giving the gift, what it provides for him and what he expects will be done with it. And the recipient should express an honest reaction, ask if he can use it for other than paying down debt, or whatever. Because much of the value to each side in such a transaction is hidden - psychological - there will be great value in clearing the air in an honest fashion. That makes it possible for the donor to get the most satisfaction out of helping and the least chance of feeling cheated, or frustrated. It has the potential for letting the recipient feel free of guilt and opens the way for him to feel gratitude.
----------------------

 

"Bob, we've been friends since high school and through the years you've been a great help to me. It hurts to see how tough things have been since you lost your job. I had a really good year, and I'm not saying that to make you feel bad, but to let you know that I won't miss this." Tom hands Bob a check with a fairly large amount specified. "It will make me feel really good to know that you can pay down some debts and buy a little time till things get better."

 

Bob looks at the check and has the sense to say nothing for a moment and to let himself feel a deep gratitude for having that kind of friend. Then he turns to the task of wondering if it would be right to take it, and what consequences it might have. He tells Tom, "I can't tell you how much it means that you would offer this. Instead of paying down debt, I want to take my wife for a short holiday. It has worn on her and she has put up with it. Would you feel that was an abuse, even in a tiny way, of this money?" Then he attempts to create something that he can offer in exchange. "Tom, if I take this, it will be on the condition that I can find something to do for you - even if it is years down the road. Maybe send you and Mary on a trip."

 

If Tom doesn't like the idea of the money being used for a vacation, and he doesn't say so, then that becomes his problem.  Like Joe said, money is fungible, and every thing Bob purchases down the road becomes a possible source of irritation.  That is just something that might come with the territory.  Donors will get more satisfaction from their giving if they give up control or even judgments of that kind down the road and instead focus on what they value about the recipient and what that makes them feel.
-------------------------

 

There is a big difference between feeling entitled and feeling worthy. And a person who feels a  strong sense of personal worth is far less likely to experience (or tolerate) any sense of being owned or controlled as a consequence of accepting charity. And high self-esteem is far more likely to make all charitable giving something that comes from the heart as opposed to coming from guilt or duty.  People with higher self-esteem will more naturally act towards others with respect (we project our self-respect and self-acceptance).  Accepting from someone who makes you feel respected is much easier than were you to feel you were being viewed as flawed, a basket case, and incapable of taking care of yourself.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 2:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

My issue with charity is slightly different: Joe and Steve focus on the misunderstandings so prevalent in charity as opposed to business, on the unspoken obligation and loss of free action implied but not specified. Both can be remedied by a clearer communication between the two parties as Steve has described.

My line of obfuscation is the actual act of charity.

Example: I give someone else's child (my own would be too selfish) money to pay for a private school. All spelled out what it's to be used for and abilities present to benefit from said school. Trust implied otherwise in writing. I do not demand a refund of the money (no loan, gift). Even my one stipulation is not to become some great philanthropist and help others in return, but at some future time find some other individual worth investing in. Again not part of the deal, just an idea I like to plant in other peoples minds.

Am I acting charitably because I do not get any physical benefits in return or am I acting selfishly because I finance my ideas of spreading individuality? If my intended value is to be surrounded by better educated individuals can my 'gift' still be called charity or is it a business transaction: money for individuals?

Guess it comes down to what Steve argued on another thread: motivation - why am I doing it, not how is my act perceived / measured from outside. And I'd call my motivation pure selfishness ;)

If that were the case: is true charity even possible? The most philanthropic do-gooder acting only out of pity and relieving misery, would also be just another selfish individual buying his feeling good about himself and the world and humanity.



Post 2

Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 5:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I'd embrace a world filled with dishonest charity far easier than a world filled with honest subjugation.   But a world filled with honest charity would certainly be best.

 

Subjugation and compelled subsidy voids charity by exactly the amount it takes by force.    It is paternalistic force.    It says, some fear that others will not be charitable 'enough' and so, must be compelled to subsidize at the point of a gun by these Emperors of Enough.   And enough is never enough, so that is their endless licence to be Emperors of not only Enough, but of everything.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 3

Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 5:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Charity with strings attached, when the strings are broken, is at most, IMO, reason for the giver to think twice the next time, but not much else.   Charitable givers get educated by the market for charity, as do the beneficiaries.   Market education.    But an aid to that education is certainly what Steve describes-- honesty in the transaction.   

 

 

That is exactly what is missing from compelled subsidy.    Strings are broken with abandon-- there are no strings, only compulsion.   And for sure, no market education.   Only the endless subsidy afforded at the point of a state gun.

 

We'd like to think that state agencies are dutifully enforcing the rules of forced subsidy.   As if.  Those very jobs themselves are a form of forced subsidy.

 

regards,

Fred



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.