"Giving Back" by Walter Williams

[© Tweed the Younger]

Your opinion of this article?

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/givingback.html

[Lief]

Typical greedy libertarian capitalist.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Typical greedy libertarian capitalist.

Libertarianism works.

[opebo]

Typical greedy libertarian capitalist.

Libertarianism works.

All systems 'work' in dominating the majority for those with power.  'Libertarianism' is no different, Straha.

[A18]

Walter Williams is spot on. Of course, the wealthy may have a moral obligation to engage in charity. But it's the notion that they must "give back" to society that is terminally absurd.

[Southern Patriot]

Walter Williams is spot on. Of course, the wealthy may have a moral obligation to engage in charity. But it's the notion that they must "give back" to society that is terminally absurd.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Walt Williams, of course it's dead on.

[Southern Patriot]

I LOVE Dr. Walter E. Williams. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the 2004 PA Libertarian Party Convention.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Typical greedy libertarian capitalist.

Most libertarians I know of support private charity, so this doesn't seem at all typical to me.


Anywho, his notion of "giving back" is flawed, as displayed by this:

Michael Jackson is rich. So is Steve Jobs and Michael Jordan. Henry Ford was rich and so was Jonas Salk - but not Williams. Why? I can sing. I can also play basketball. The problem is that my fellow man is not as pleased by my performance as he is with Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan. Henry Ford became rich by making it possible for the ordinary person to own a car and Jonas Salk helped eliminate a dreaded disease. You tell me what else do they owe anyone; they've already given.

You don't become rich by giving - you become rich by selling, which is what these people did. Henry Ford sold cars, he didn't give them away. Sure, he made them affordable for the common man, but he did that so he could make a greater profit. He also instituted a lot of programs for his workers as well as increased their pay, but he did that to reduce his employee turnover rate instead of a spirit of giving to the workers. And you don't see Steve Jobs handing out iPods to everyone who walks into his stores, he sells them to make money. Again, it's patently absurd to call making money by selling a product or service "giving".

[A18]

A basic definition of trade is "to give in exchange for something else." Williams is not claiming that these individuals have engaged in charity. Rather, he is making the point that should be absolutely obvious. If I receive money for nothing, then it may be legitimate to say that I should "give something back." But these individuals already "gave" to society in the form of their contributions to commerce.

A free market economy is based on mutual assistance. Too many people fail to grasp this basic (but fundamental) insight.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

A basic definition of trade is "to give in exchange for something else." Williams is not claiming that these individuals have engaged in charity. Rather, he is making the point that should be absolutely obvious. If I receive money for nothing, then it may be legitimate to say that I should "give something back." But these individuals already "gave" to society in the form of their contributions to commerce.

If you give a gift, you don't necessarily expect to get anything in return. If you sell a television, you expect money in return. The individuals sold their products to society for their own gain, not for the sake of the public. Yes, their products were beneficial, but that doesn't mean they gave them away. Don't get me wrong - I don't hold anything against them, and I don't think they necessarily owe anyone anything, but to call it "giving" when they were doing it for money is absurd.

"Giving back" may imply they owe something to society, but it doesn't imply they didn't earn their wealth. I would agree it's a bad way to put that those with wealth should give to charity, but again I don't call selling a product giving in the sense that "giving back to society" implies because it's not.

[A18]

To "give" and to "give a gift" are not always, and in all contexts, two expressions for the same thing. I did not think this required citation, but if it does, I suppose dictionary.com is as good as any other internet source. See various entries under exchange and trade.

The notion that a person should "give back" to society implies that he has taken something without offering any consideration. It seems to me that that alone is what Williams is addressing, when he says that these people have "given"--that they received their money by improving the welfare of "society."

But I suppose there is no need for us to quibble over semantics. It appears we agree in principle. Those who earn wealth in a free market have neither engaged in charity, nor have they "exploited" anyone (for lack of a better, equally succinct term). They have benefited themselves and society through mutually beneficial exchange; with, of course, the standard caveat that results are not always in line with expectations.

[SPC]

I LOVE Dr. Walter E. Williams.

Platonically, of course.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Your opinion of this article?

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/givingback.html

Something which in theory should be correct; but rarely actually works that way in the real world.

Plus the Percentage of people who 'earn' their way up from the bottom rung to at least the Middle is extremely small in the States iirc. (It is Ireland too, but let's not bring Ireland into it. Poverty is very complex issue that can't be just solved by giving poor people lots of money - Welfare is meant to be a stopgap (and an instrument of Social stability) though I've never bought into the whole "OMG WELFARE WHORES!!11" - the funny thing is I can't imagine anyone who says that actually trying to live on social welfare for a week. (In Ireland it's only slightly do-able; but only if you already have accomodation, don't drink, don't smoke and don't have a car - which excludes a good portion of people..)

[A18]

Precision is important in stating and evaluating statistics. But I don't know what so-called social mobility has to do with this subject, anyway. Even supposing that the entire class of people arbitrarily defined as "rich" merely inherited large sums of money, they have not "taken" from society at large without offering compensation, but from family. A person may well have a moral obligation to, in appropriate form and in appropriate circumstances, "pay back" his parents for all they've done for him, but that's entirely beside the point. (The family members, moreover, have obviously in this case died.)

Of course, all the principles at issue in this discussion apply equally in the case of the non-rich.