What Do We Owe To Others?
Posted by Justin McHenry in Charity
I read this blog post about megarich Silicon Valley veteran Tom Perkins today and then went over to 60 Minutes to see the segment for myself. In short, Perkins has a lot of rich guy stuff, including the world's biggest sailboat, and he likes to show it off. But he wouldn't tell 60 Minutes how much the yacht cost, because he's a little embarrassed by the fact that he's spending all this money on rich guy toys instead of using it to help others.
What I then found interesting was this comment at the WSJ blog about the story, partially quoted below:
But couldn't the same be said of the $50K that is so easily spent on a new car? Stopping at Starbucks before work each morning could easily cost $700 annually – a small indulgence by many standards, but is it necessary while hundreds die daily from malnutrition? And what about the clothes we wear? Of course there is a need to be presentable and professional, but we often convince ourselves that we 'need' a new [insert what you currently want here], when we would really be fine without it. We, and I include myself here, are willing to spend to support a lifestyle that contains many nonessentials, all for the sake of appearance.
My point is not that I support an extraordinary ego, and the possessions necessary to support it. My point is that in reading about Mr. Perkins, I realized that I need to consider what I spend my salary on and consider the opportunity costs of my lifestyle.
Thinking about Perkins and the commenter's thoughts, the obvious question is, when do/should we feel obligated to help others financially, i.e., contribute a chunk of our money to charities? Many of us do this on a small scale, but at what point in the richness does it go from "nice to do" to a "responsibility"? I put those words in quotes because of course it's always nice to do and never a responsibility in absolute terms, but only in our opinions.
On one end, you can be all Ayn Rand-ish and say these people made tons of money through their own efforts and many other people also made a lot of money through their efforts via the creation of jobs, return on investments in Perkins' companies, etc., so there is no responsibility to use the money for anything other than what that person feels like using it on.
On the other end, people will say that once your basic needs are met (and maybe a few extravagances to celebrate your hard work and good fortune) the rest should be plowed into projects that change the world for the better.
I tend to think if I was rich I'd be on the low end of the extravagance scale, because I see money as a ticket to freedom more than a ticket to boats and cars. But at the same time I don't judge anyone else's desire to simply plow their money into monuments to their own greatness (although maybe my choice of words shows that I do judge it to some extent).
What do you think you would do if you were extremely wealthy, and do you think the richest among us have an obligation to use their money to help others?
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I’m afraid that you’ve misunderstood part of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. While she was definitely an advocate of selfishness her view of selfishness was the antithesis of doing whatever one feels like. Specifically she believed that one should always follow Reason rather than emotion if the two should come into conflict. And furthermore she did not believe that “because I feel like it” was a valid moral justification for *any* action. I should add last that one of her most distinctive philosophical ideas in regard to this discussion was that she understood that man’s most “basic” need was not food, clothing, or shelter, but the need to develop and use one’s rational faculty. Among other things one’s rational faculty helps to identify that one needs food, clothing, and shelter, and in what quality we need them.
Ayn Rand also was generous. What she was against was the idea of sacrifice and having a duty to help others.
Ayn Rand was generous. That is on record. What she was against was the idea of sacrifice and having a duty to help others.
Interesting that the Ayn Rand reference should spark comments. There seems to be a criticism of the way I referred to Rand, which sort of puzzles me. My interpretation of Ayn Rand has always been that she was against the idea of people being obligated to the masses, of dumbing down their abilities or doing things to appeal to the masses instead of to their own personal passions. In many of her books there is the theme of the hangers-on who resent the “great” while at the same time living off of their efforts.
My reference isn’t to say that Rand advocated being a greedy person; it’s to say that she advocated doing things your own way, and not being obligated to do what others say you should do, or living to a standard that someone else has set, even if you don’t believe in that standard.
In this context, my question when referring to Tom Perkins (or to any of us when it comes to our money) is, do we “owe” a piece of our money to others, or should that be our free choice? Obviously it is our free choice, but are criticisms of it valid, or, back to Rand, are they the cries of people who resent the people with money even while they’re asking for some of it?
Earned wealth is the exclusive property of the earner, and comes with no duty to share with anyone, regardless of their need. If the owner of that wealth chooses to share it or spend it is solely his/her prerogative.
Since most wealthy people invest the bulk of that wealth in some way, they are in fact, benefiting others by creating jobs that would not otherwise exist. The portion they choose to spend sustains the businesses that sell the products that are bought, and keep people working. It is only when the money is taxed (i.e., confiscated and given to those who have not earned it) that the beneficial effect of the wealth is lost forever.