May 10, 2006
Caring Vs. Uncaring
Printer FriendlyBy: Walter Williams
George Orwell admonished, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." That's what I want to do -- talk about the obvious, starting with the question: What human motivation leads to the most wonderful things getting done?
How about the charity and selflessness we've seen from people like Mother Teresa? What about the ceaseless and laudable work of organizations like the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity and Salvation Army? What about the charitable donations of rich Americans, to use the silly phrase, who've given something back?
While the actions of these people and their organizations are laudable, results motivated by charity and selflessness pale in comparison to other motives behind getting good things done. Let's look at it.
In December 1999, Stephen Moore and Julian L. Simon wrote an article titled "The Greatest Century That Ever Was," published by the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute. In it they report: Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 30 years; annual deaths from major killer diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, typhoid, whooping cough and pneumonia fell from 700 to fewer than 50 per 100,000 of the population; agricultural workers fell from 41 to 2.5 percent of the workforce; household auto ownership rose from one to 91 percent; household electrification rose from 8 to 99 percent; controlling for inflation, household assets rose from $6 trillion to $41 trillion between 1945 and 1998. These are but a few of the wonderful things that have occurred during the 20th century.
Returning to my initial question: What human motivation accounts for the accomplishment of these and many other wonderful things? The answer should be obvious. It was not accomplished by people's concern for others but by people's concern for themselves. In other words, it's people seeking more for themselves that has produced a better life for all Americans.
Take a minor example. I think it's wonderful that Idaho potato farmers get up early in the morning to toil in the fields, which results in Walter Williams in Pennsylvania enjoying potatoes. Does anyone think they make that sacrifice because they care about me? They might hate me, but they make sure that I enjoy potatoes because they care about and want more things for themselves.
What about all those people who've invented and marketed machines that do everything from diagnosing illnesses to controlling air flight? Were they basically motivated by a concern for others, or were they mostly concerned with their own well-being?
One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one's fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him. Many of the wonderful achievements of the 20th century were the result of the pursuit of profits. Unfortunately, demagoguery has led to profits becoming a dirty word. Nonprofit is seen as more righteous, particularly when people pompously stand before us and declare, "We're a nonprofit organization."
Profit is cast in a poor light because people don't understand the role of profits. Profit is a payment to entrepreneurs just as wages are payments to labor, interest to capital and rent to land. In order to earn profits in free markets, entrepreneurs must identify and satisfy human wants in a way that economizes on society's scarce resources.
Here's a little test. Which entities produce greater consumer satisfaction: for-profit enterprises such as supermarkets, computer makers and clothing stores, or nonprofit entities such as public schools, post offices and motor vehicle departments? I'm guessing you'll answer the former. Their survival depends on pleasing ordinary people, as opposed to the latter, whose survival is not so strictly tied to pleasing people.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that self-interest and the free market system produce perfect outcomes, but they're the closest we'll come to perfection here on Earth.
Posted by redguy at May 10, 2006 07:17 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/476
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Caring Vs. Uncaring:
» acyclovir medication from acyclovir medication
[Read More]
Tracked on August 4, 2006 09:05 AM
Comments
Having recently worked for a "non-profit" organization after spending the majority of my career in the regular business world, I must offer my observations. It will be interesting to hear if others have witnessed similar circumstances.
The term "Non-Profit" does NOT mean that the employees will not get paid extremely well - nor does it mean that the management of said organizations will be conducted in a business-like manner. If most of the employees in the non-profit world had to answer to the demands of a regular business environment, I believe they would be let go within a month - or would leave because of the work that would be expected from them! The operative mode is Meetings, Meetings, Meetings...and no production! It seems that everyone wants to be (or assumes they are) "management" leaving no one around to do the work. In summation, I will NEVER again work for a non-profit!
Posted by: JASCC ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.redstatesusa.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 10, 2006 12:55 PM
You are both right. That's why I am a capitalist. John Witherspoon, the governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony found out that working for one's self--read profit--produced results while working for others did not.
Socialists of every kind have tried to create their ideal of a perfect world. They have all failed. They always will. And they will create totalitarian nightmares in the process.
Posted by: Loser at May 10, 2006 08:03 PM
An Anecdote: A friend of mine has returned to college for some enrichment courses, one course is 'Introduction to Computers'. She early on told the professor she was not in the class for a grade but for knowledge, she did not have internet access or even a PC. Others in the class reacted as though she did not have indoor plumbing. When she told me I looked at her as though she did not have indoor plumbing.
Posted by: enemaofthestatusquo at May 11, 2006 10:55 AM
I suppose that explains everybody's attitude toward the non-profit Military. I guess if we charged them for our services, they'd expect a return on their investment.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one :)
In the real world, changes come without mercy. Every generation must find access to the market, or be relogated to economic obscurity. The market in this age is cyber-space.
Education determines accessibility. Being cyber illiterate is economic extinction.
In the past, people identified with institutions. Charity was motivated by a desire to perpetuate the institution, or the merits and virtues of the institution. In any case, only those who obtained sufficent wealth could afford to be generous in that respect.
Money is its own MERIT-ocracy. Criminals and socialists will never get this. For both, money is something gouged out of the productive classes, not something earned on merit ... ergo: Criminals and Socialists have no real merit or virtue. Their charities are either cosmetic or mercenary.
Posted by: Athling at May 15, 2006 06:16 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)