First of all, by not wanting to grab everything that we can reach but probably would not need, we give freedom to others (beside us, or in the future) to live fulfilled lives; and we really enjoy giving the same opportunities to others. In the modern over-exploited world, the freedom of others (beside us, or in the future) to enjoy the same basic things is not to be taken for granted.

Leaving enough resources to others is basic application of the Golden Rule, when there is risk of depriving the others of the same life quality. We generally enjoy not hurting the others.

When it comes to giving, we are most concerned to give to those that are hurt. It is enjoyable to see people most in need being helped, especially with your contribution. We may be not much concerned with giving personally to recipients - but we do see it very sensible to help the people by collective arrangements, like taxes. We can give more help if we cooperate in giving the help - and we enjoy giving together.  

Europeans, who are snobbish about American culture, are also shamed by American altruism. Once they have made their fortune, Americans devote themselves to giving it away. They lavish gifts on their school, their church, their college, or their hospital, taking an obvious pleasure in doing so. They also take pleasure in others' success -- an emotion that seems to have vanished entirely from European society.

Clearly he's really saying that Europeans are shamed by American success.

And of course he's right. We certainly are shamed of successes created by screwing the weaker and less fortunate, presented in vulgar displays of competitive conspicuous consumption.

We're ashamed that Bill Gates became one of the richest men in the world by selling fourth rate software enforced by predatory practices.

We're ashamed that IBM worked with the Nazis to make the holocaust run more smoothly.

We're ashamed of car companies that fight tooth and nail to prevent limits on emissions standards, even when this makes them less profitable and doesn't match real market needs, because they prefer to preach a gospel of high-octane machismo than deal with the real world.

We're ashamed of success created by running sweatshops and impoverishing local workers by outsourcing work to even poorer workers overseas.

We're not ashamed of real success, created honestly. But when there's so little honest success, created with a social conscience, we don't think that throwing money at a church or school makes up for the damage that has been done in accumulating it.

Further, the American version of charity is based on a semi-feudal patron-client system that progressives usually reject. One of the many functions of the welfare state is precisely to break the bonds between clients and patrons.

Not so many decades ago, employers provided their employees with housing, food, cloth, etc. That, of course, made the employees utterly dependent on their employers. If you were fired from your workplace, your quality of life would drop like a homesick rock. The welfare state has broken that dependency, by providing universal health care, universal pensions and universal unemployment insurance.

Not so many decades ago, the family was the vital primary social unit, protection and material security in case you lost your job. This, of course, led to a dependence on your family. If you had a falling-out with your matriarch or patriarch, you were up a creek without a paddle. The welfare state has broken that dependency too.

I.o.w., the difference between American and European concepts of welfare can, I believe, be summed up as a difference in the view of social structure: Employer-based health care, pay-per-degree education, private pension schemes and lack of universal unemployment insurance reflect (and create and reinforce) an underlying clan-based patron-client society.

As an aside, the unfettered accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few families that we have seen over the last half-century may well be a harbringer of a return to a truly feudal society: A society where clans of pseudo-nobles wield a power that is individually or collectively comparable to the power of the State. Naturally, such a society is incompatible with democracy as is usually understood - one of the historical prerequisites for democracy was central authority breaking the power of the nobility in the 16th and 17th centuries...

As another aside, I have yet to see any numbers that document Americans being more charitable than Europeans, when you decontaminate the statistics of church contributions and other phony charities.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

I would venture that your emphasis on the "don't" is describing a characteristic of Western European societies.

Eastern European societies on the other hand have been undergoing a huge identity crisis trying to match their traditions with Western mores. I should expand on that later.

Here it suffices to say that I feel you are missing the emphasis on sacrifice introduced by Christianity. The question and the imperative, moves from the "don't" (Jewish Law), to the "do" (Hellenic and Asian thought) to "sacrifice" (Christianity) In the latter (admittedly rarely practiced approach) the Ego is vacated. All actions are addressing the urge to serve and thus be in community. The good Samaritan was a parable to explain how one acts shelflessly in a secular setting. It was then followed by the explicit request to leave all worldy matters behind thus vacating one's Ego.

Societies function with a combination of the "do" and the "don't". Conservation has long stopped being an interest of conservatives and therefore expecting from them to willingly limit their power is like waiting for Niagara Falls to dry. It is not happening in our lifetime.

Orthodoxy is not a religion.

Basically it involves cherry-picking or targeting the needy within a restricted framework in order to maximize social and religious cohesion around the aims of the ruling class. It's highly symbolic and simply serves to reinforce consensus.

There will be plenty of ritualized gratitude and plenty of kickbacks. But in the end it's a formidable obstacle to welfare and other basic rights.

Or to put it bluntly, a basic right is transformed into a self-serving donation.

Friday, December 22, 2006
Charity Shouldn't Begin at Home

`Tis the season to be jolly and also to make donations to your favorite charity. This year's charitable donations are expected to total more than $200 billion, a new record. Some 80 percent of them are made now, in the final weeks of the year.

But lots of charitable dollars - especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate - are going to culture palaces: to the operas, art museums, symphonies, and theaters where they spend much of their leisure time. They're also going to the universities they once attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the help of what's known as affirmative action for "legacies."

These aren't really charitable contributions. They're more like investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have, too. They're also investments in prestige - especially if they result in the family name engraved on the new wing of the art museum or symphony hall.

It's your business how you donate your money. But not entirely. Charitable donations are deductible from income taxes. This year, the U.S. Treasury will be receiving about $40 billion less than it would if the tax code didn't allow charitable deductions. Like all tax deductions, that gap has to be filled by other tax revenues or by spending cuts, or else it just adds to the deficit. (Not incidentally, the government now spends some $40 billion a year on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is what remains of welfare.)

I can see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable tax deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the Guggenheim Museum or Harvard University?

Look, I'm all in favor of the arts, and I've spent a good portion of my adult life teaching in a university. I can see giving a charitable deduction to an art program or a scholarship program aimed at the poor. That's charity. But not to an arts palace that has nothing to do with the poor. Not long ago Lincoln Center had a gala dinner supported by the charitable contributions of the leaders of the hedge fund industry, some of whom will be receiving billion-dollar bonuses in the next few weeks. I may be missing something here, but this doesn't strike me as charity. I mean, poor New Yorkers don't often attend concerts at the Lincoln Center.

It turns out, in fact, that only an estimated 10 percent of all charitable deductions this year will be directed at the poor.
...

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

An F for Scruton.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

The biologists are straining to find an evolutionary explanation as well.

But on the issue of philanthropy one needn't bring in altruism. Much philanthropy is motivated by ego and control. Truly altruistic philanthropy would have to be anonymous.

I have an essay on why philanthropy is not a "good thing":

Abolish Philanthropy

I distinguish charity from philanthropy.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

[When] a father works to provide for his children; when a woman spends her money on a person she loves;

´man=father provides, woman<mother spends´  Aaarrrgggh.<p> as a mother takes pleasure in the pleasures of her child.

A father doesn´t?

Scruton is .... necrotic!  Should be on the scrub list.  But thanks for a good diary.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.