5 comments so far
Your analogy is, of course, the ideal situation for the fisherman and the starving man. In a one-on-one situation, the fisherman can reasonably assess the starving man’s progress and effort and set a cut-off date accordingly, extending it if there are extenuating circumstances.
I am curious, however, how you feel this can be applied to a government setting where there are by necessity no one-on-one situations. Each “starving man” is going to have one or more people teaching them how to fish, and separately one or more people deciding whether or not they get a fish on any given day. The teachers are likely to have large classes where they would not have the ability to work closely with each student, and similarly each case worker is going to have a number of people to evaluate that does not necessarily give them the time to thoroughly investigate each individual’s extenuating circumstances.
They must rely on data that simply cannot give the whole picture in every case, and the word of the person who rather obviously has a vested interest in getting their fish. Even assuming perfect knowledge on the part of the case worker, they are going to have bosses and rules that they have to follow that might not be sufficiently flexible for a given situation.
It is also worth noting that education does not equal employment, or, to extend the analogy, even a skilled fisherman can have lean years for reasons beyond his control, whether his usual fishing areas are overfished by others, or there’s some environmental issue that reduces the fish population or drives them elsewhere, or perhaps even his fishing boat is badly damaged by a storm.
Not that I think mindlessly giving out fish every day to anyone who wants one is any better, but I’m curious how you factor this in. Thoughts?
I am curious, however, how you feel this can be applied to a government setting where there are by necessity no one-on-one situations.
The first thing I would say is that the government should not be a charity. However, your concerns apply equally well to private charity, which makes them well worth addressing.
Each “starving man” is going to have one or more people teaching them how to fish, and separately one or more people deciding whether or not they get a fish on any given day…
This problem mirrors quite strongly the problem faced by real teachers in classrooms all across America. In the school setting, the most effective answer has been to recruit new teachers as a way to reduce class sizes. Charities could do the same.
Assuming, however, that the “class size” is fixed, there are still options available to mitigate what basically amounts to an impersonal charity system. As you rightly point out, no two people are going to be in exactly the same situation, nor will they have the same capacity to learn. At the same time, very few personal situations are 100% unique. By carefully sorting individuals into groups of people with similar backgrounds and skill sets, the teacher can gain some economy of scale. Furthermore, while I would hesitate to condition giving a person a hand on this, I strongly believe that people who are receiving the benefits of charity should be expected to contribute back as soon as they are able. In the words of the analogy, I’m basically talking about encouraging the students to form study groups. Case workers would be able to periodically review each group to ensure that each member remains well placed.
Even assuming perfect knowledge on the part of the case worker, they are going to have bosses and rules that they have to follow that might not be sufficiently flexible for a given situation.
One point not seen in the analogy is the fact that there are multiple fishermen in the world. I see nothing wrong with one charity eventually executing its rules and giving up and the recipient enrolling himself in another. Eventually, he will either learn to fish or run out of places to go.
even a skilled fisherman can have lean years for reasons beyond his control
This gets fairly close to asking why there should be charity in the first place. To be sure, misfortune happens, and some people only need a helping hand to pull them over the wall that they’ve hit in life. Ideally, our fisherman would be better off if he learned how to hunt deer when the fish are scarce. More realistically, however, it may be that a handout is exactly all that he needs. But it is, I think you will agree, a different thing to give a man a fish than it is to give him fish for all eternity.
I do agree that it is a different thing to give a man a fish than it is to give him fish for all eternity, and I very much wish to avoid the latter situation. In fact I agree to some degree with everything you’ve said, here and in your other posts (except the taxing MMOs post. That I agree with entirely). I question as much because I want more information on your opinion as anything else.
Regarding class size, I would remind that, unless the teachers are volunteering in their free time, they must also be provided fish, so that’s one less starving man the charity can feed. Must… Stop… Stretching.. Analogy…
Regarding your point of multiple charities, I’m not sure that should actually be seen as a positive… Given a sufficient number of charities (assuming one could eventually reenroll after a certain time period), a person could potentially bounce around from charity to charity in perpetuity. Even if they couldn’t, it would certainly muddy the whole idea of the clear end date, as the person might expect to find another.
A larger issue that applies both to your government should not be a charity as well as some of our discussion on small government in general is that you seem to be relying on your ideal government governing an ideal people. It is in a community’s best interest to be (limitedly) charitable to the less fortunate of that community, as it raises the community as a whole. It is in my best interest for the community to be charitable, as I could at some point be among those less fortunate. It is -not- my best interest for me personally to be charitable. Unless I am flush with wealth, it is more beneficial to me, especially in the direct sense, to take the money I might otherwise donate and either spend to live that much more comfortably, invest to make more money, or save against future misfortune.
If I am charitable, it does not guarantee that other people will also be charitable, and if I am not, it will not stop others from being charitable, nor is it likely to significantly impact my own supply of fish (argh, that analogy again!) if I do fall on hard times and require a charity’s assistance. (Again, all this is assuming a “common man”‘s income, not millionaires and such)
I think I also touched on this in our IM conversation, that while it was in municipalities’ common interest to have similar laws, but not in any given municipality’s inerest to be the first to change, as they have no control over the others. Same principle.
unless the teachers are volunteering in their free time, they must also be provided fish, so that’s one less starving man the charity can feed.
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. After all, the teachers would need to eat whether they’re teaching, fishing, or doing something else.
If you’re simply talking about the overhead a paid teacher adds to the question, then yes, that is certainly something to pay attention to. However, if your paid teacher (who, in the pay-for-performance world of the free market will normally be more skilled than a random volunteer) can teach a class of five how to fish in one fewer day than an unpaid volunteer is able to, then by investing one fish, the charity has a net savings of four fish.
Given a sufficient number of charities … a person could potentially bounce around from charity to charity in perpetuity.
I agree that this is a problem, but it is one which I think would not be likely in a limited charity world. For one thing, there are switching costs involved in finding and joining a new charity. For another, charities are likely to impose certain conditions on their recipients as a means of evaluating whether or not to extend their deadline and meeting these commitments is not a zero cost activity. Most importantly, however; because limited charities are designed to return people to self-sufficiency, the professional recipient would suffer the high opportunity cost of remaining dependent.
Charities could, I suppose, add a reputation component to this as well by performing some sort of a background check on the people who ask for help. It would not be my preference, but it is an option.
you seem to be relying on your ideal government governing an ideal people.
A full answer to this is more than belongs in a comment section, but there is some truth to this. The short answer is that people need to learn to behave better. The long answer will probably show up in the next couple days.
It is -not- my best interest for me personally to be charitable.
This is possible, but not universally true. It may be that giving is not in your best interest, but it might be in mine or someone else’s. The return on investment for charitable giving is something which is highly personal. A lot of people feel better about themselves when they are able to help someone else. Being part of a charitable organization helps to give people a sense of belonging. Going and doing charitable acts (as opposed to merely writing a check) provides an opportunity to meet new people and make new friends. All of these things are valuable, even if the value is difficult to quantify in dollars and cents.
Yes, I am talking about the balance between overhead and effectiveness, which is a tricky proposition. Your math is a bit off, btw. If it takes the unpaid teacher 7 days to teach a class of 5 how to fish, this would cost 35 fish. If a paid teacher takes one day less, that’s 36 fish (6 days times 6 people including the teacher, as the teacher would presumably need to eat each day they’re busy teaching). Of course, it swings the other way if it’s 5 days and 4 days respectively, and different class sizes and different differences in time complicates the equation further. Also that should really be 2 paid teachers with classes of 5 each vs 1 paid teacher with a class of 10, as that’s what we were talking about, but roughly the same variables are involved. My point is that hiring more teachers to reduce class size is not necessarily the best course for the charity, and a delicate balancing act.
You’re right, I discounted the personal fulfillment individuals might feel from donating to charity, partially because it is subjective and varies widely from person to person, partially because I didn’t think about it. I agree that it is a motivator, but how much of one overall goes back to the ideal people thing. I look forward to your eventual further elaboration on that subject.
One Trackback/Ping
Leave a reply
Note: Flames of Freedom encourages free and open discussion, so comments may express views with which its authors disagree. Flames of Freedom and its authors do not implicitly endorse any comment simply by allowing it to remain visible and uncontested.
Note: By submitting a comment, you indicate your acceptance of our Comment Policy.
[...] in the comments section discussing the First Principle of limited charity, Patrick offers an observation which is entirely relevant and insightful. What Patrick points out is that I “seem to be [...]