The Opinion Journal talks about the effectiveness of voluntary American charity and the ineffectiveness of government directed wealth redistribution schemes that some people call for. The former is an expression of hope, the latter one of guilt. Guess which works out better for all involved?
It's the season for giving–and that is more than a Salvation Army cliché. As Christmas approaches, Americans routinely reach deeper into their pockets for charity; according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, about a third of total giving in 2005 came in the last three months.
And for every philanthropic dollar, there is someone with an opinion about where it should go. We don't mind when the person with the opinion is ringing a bell outside the supermarket, standing in the cold and appealing to our goodwill. But when he has an appointment at an Ivy League university and makes larger moral claims, it pays to be wary.
This year's version of that moral instruction comes from Princeton Professor Peter Singer, who is most famous for his endorsement of certain kinds of infanticide. His theme for the 2006 holidays is "What Should a Billionaire Give–And What Should You?," a long essay in the New York Times Magazine arguing for a grand global transfer of wealth.
Like Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs and other famous liberals, Mr. Singer believes that the problem with the world's poor is a matter of financial arithmetic. If only each of us in the West would tithe to the Earth's poorer regions, all would be well, or at least much better than it is. The United Nations has posted Millennium Goals along similar lines. According to Mr. Sachs, a mere transfer of $189 billion by 2015 should do the trick.
It's a happy illusion that has the misfortune of ignoring the problems of human nature and dignity. As Adam Meyerson of the Philanthropy Roundtable notes, more important than check-writing are the "institutions that help people come out of poverty." The only real solution isn't a new global dole but giving the poor the means to create wealth for themselves. Unless we can bring "the rule of law and accountable government" to the Third World, Mr. Meyerson argues, there is no reason to believe that giving money will matter. Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," a new book about Americans' giving habits, agrees: "In a modern economy, the primary resource of value is not cash but ideas."
It should be instructive for the people pushing for handouts to instead look at the track record of micro loans. Small amounts loaned, not given away, to tiny business ventures are providing a way out of poverty for thousands around the world. They mention the old saying about teaching someone to fish versus giving away a fish in the O-J piece. It is still true.
