Keywords: Charity, inflation, fiscal deficit, vote buying, Robin Hood, tax burden, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Edward Bellamy, New Economics, Keynes, socialism, Marx, Orwell, Bastiat, entitlement, safety net.

                CONFLICTED BY CHARITY

                                                                            A meditation on governing with charity by Xuan Quen Santos

Charity is intentional behavior. Caring for others in a very conscious and deliberate way is a very human trait. Being “humane” is a more recent concept that has taken its place. Benevolence is an outdated synonym seldom used now. Many use the ambiguous phrase “love for others” as a malleable synonym.  The Latin word that originates it is “caritas”, also the root of charitable, caring, and careful. In our Judeo-Christian traditional ethics, the human action described has ancient origins. It represents a concern for the wellbeing of others that also includes a mandate to intervene in a way that will give assistance or resources to those in need without expecting anything in return. Charity as a moral duty stems from our sentiment of empathy which enables us to understand and emotionally share the suffering of others. Empathy puts us in the shoes of the needy whereas compassion is empathy in action.

Charitable or benevolent organizations and associations exist worldwide as extensions of the individual persons’ moral duty.  Religious institutions have historically performed such functions, but secular voluntary associations have become more numerous and visible in the last two centuries. In many countries, these institutions are tax-exempt, since their funding has traditionally been voluntary contributions of the same people in the community who pay taxes. The donations they receive are usually considered contributions to the well-being of all. Participating in their activities is considered an honorable civic duty. Charitable entities are highly esteemed in their communities and their presence and effectiveness raises the standing of their town, city, or country in the eyes of the world.

The Judeo-Christian ethical tradition on charitable acts carries several admonitions: Be generous in what you give or provide; do not expect any reward but the moral satisfaction of doing it; do it humbly and quietly. These are such high moral expectations that history is filled with our failures to reach them, and many incentives were developed to promote charity. Eternal bliss rewards were not enough. Pardons for unspeakable acts of the past were exchanged for donations and grants. Titles and high places of honor were abundant; nowadays, naming rights, tax deductions, honorary Ph. D’s, diplomas and medals, plaques, bricks with your name, photographs of the beneficiaries, mugs, blankets…anything tangible is expected. Anything to exalt the ego of the donor or reward it with valuable prizes is offered.

Was anything lost with the introduction of incentives for charitable behavior? Any system of exchange and negotiation approximates what we see in the market. Is charity for sale?

Exchanging and negotiating require convincing arguments. The Greeks allow us with their thinking tools to consider the components of exchanging behavior in non-market situations, like negotiating charity. Three words/concepts used in rhetoric (the art of logical argumentation) are considered here to follow the transformation of charity. These are “Ethos, Logos and Pathos”, the roots of ethics, logic and pathetic. In simpler terms: rules or norms, reason, and emotions or feelings. The three paragraphs of my initial considerations deal with Ethos.

Solid arguments follow the path of ethos and create a structure of facts in a chain built with logos. But we are human with another side. A persuasive argument will also appeal to emotions. A passionate delivery is more effective than a script read by a computer. A connection with the feelings and personal experiences of the listener creates a positive reception of the dry but reasonable and ethical arguments. Appeals to human feelings flood advertisements, the arts and political language to persuade the audience to do something. Pathos aims to create an emotional response in the audience, but it is not an argument. Pathos is powerful but it can be used improperly to create an emotional fog that leads to intellectual error. Empathy and compassion can be abused to the point they overwhelm any rules and reasoning.

Charity is increasingly being corrupted by the abuse of empathy at the expense of moral integrity and in direct opposition to any reasonable conclusion. Most people do not recognize what has happened and continue supporting this process of degradation.

How we judge the same basic facts of an event will change with differing arguments of ethos, logos and pathos describing it. The following illustration helps to understand this problem.

A)      Some robbers have been assaulting travelers on the road through the woods.

B)     A group of armed bandits has been robbing unsuspecting travelers of anything of value as they journey through the forest on their way home.

C)    A violent band of outlaws assaulted and wounded innocent travelers on their way home through the forest leaving them helpless and suffering after taking the money they had and anything of value they could carry.

D)      A group of persecuted and abused townspeople bravely took arms and hid in the forest to take back their taxes and tributes that armed men from the sheriff had abusively extracted from them. After defeating the royal guards, they went back to town and justly distributed the money among the suffering people.

E)      Robin Hood was a legendary hero who took wealth from the rich and gave it to the poor.

Actor Russell Crowe as Robin Hood (2010)

            The illustration goes from describing the same event with the minimum of information, insufficient to make a judgement, through versions from different points of view to a reductive Marxist vision of the conflict between oppressors and oppressed. It is clear that additional details, as well as the use of adjectives and adverbs, or “code” words with slanted meanings, provoke different emotional reactions. How did your feelings change as you read from C to D. Did you change sides? Version E has become quite popular in the classrooms today. The complete truth is somewhere between the medieval legend of Earl Robin Locksley of the XII century’s ballads to the actual revolt of the Barons against King John “Lackland” (Plantagenet). In 1215, a civil war took place against an abusive king that imprisoned critics without trial, confiscated property without judicial process, and levied new and unjustified high taxes and tributes on his peers. It led to one of the most momentous occasions in the history of Western institutions of Law and Human Rights: the signing of the “Magna Carta Libertatum” (Great Charter of Our Rights) that ended the war.

Magna Carta on calf´s skin           King John signing the treaty

                The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a direct descendant of the Magna Carta. In particular, amendments from five to eight are almost literally copied in less archaic English.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

                Eight centuries later, Robin Hood is a hero because he violated the property rights of the oppressive rich people and was charitable to the poor and needy. Somewhere in the fog introduced by the dialectic model of rich vs poor (oppressor vs oppressed) charity has been transformed into the justification for robbery. A twisted pathos has been used to manipulate logos and destroy ethos. Unfortunately, this absurd conclusion has been spreading like the black death in the last 150 years.

                The breakdown of the Medieval institutions led to the emergence of absolute monarchies supported with standing armies and large bureaucracies. During the same period, the extension and generalization of the values inherent in the Magna Carta progressed to the recognition of the idea of equal personal rights and neutral justice.  After a few bloody revolutions and wars, the adoption of limits to the power of governments and several models of more participatory political systems, we are still conflicted by the fog of charity.

A handful of decorative, archaic, hereditary monarchies still subsist in their performances but muzzled by parliaments. In contrast, but only in appearance, modern-day autocrats play dramatized elections in full theatrical regalia and legalistic backdrops since their outdated ideological constructs have fallen. In fact, their totalitarian powers exceed those exercised by monarchs in ancient times. On the opposite side of the street of history, similar stages exhibit a variety of republican dramas that barely survive from election to election. Thrillers created by risky balancing acts between new demands for charity and ways to disguise how to pay for them. The essence of the drama is not new.

Christian Martyrdom in the Roman Circus

The degradation of the Roman Empire was characterized by the phrase “panem et circenses” (Bread and circus, in Latin). It reflected the giving of the rulers to appease the ever-demanding mob´s insatiable appetite for all things free of cost. The Emperor-Gods were “gracious” as divinities, a title that carried over in the English Royal court to refer to the top tier as “Your Grace” (From the Latin “gratia”). In the period of Christian expansion among the Romans, “Divine Grace” entered the religious language as a reference to Providence; God provides. The charity, benevolence, or generosity of the top tier, the “great ones”, made them magnanimous and magnificent (Magna in Latin). They could be so, mainly because they owned or controlled everybody and everything.

Gratitude, of the same root, is what the recipient of charity should feel, manifested in the Spanish language expression of thanks: “gracias”.  Grateful is full of gratitude. But, there is another angle. What if there was no “caritas” involved and the powerful were in effect paying for something? The word that has the answer is of the same root: “gratis”. This is a surviving Latin word used in English since the XV century. It means for nothing, free of charge, for thanks, or without paying for it.

The giver and the recipient face an ethical situation in any of the actions described. It is caritas if there is no ulterior expectation. The giver´s action which involves a cost -a minus- ends with the moral satisfaction of having done a good deed. The recipient does the right thing if he feels gratitude after receiving a benefit -a plus. If the giver expects anything in return for his action, and the recipient feels compelled to give it, it is no longer a charitable action. Charity requires a sacrifice from the giver, a disposition of his property. How we value the importance of the concept, rules, rights, and benefits of a traditional respect to property and the rule of law will illuminate how you judge the different versions of Robin Hood’s activities in Sherwood Forest.

The reductive version E, the Marxist story, starts by taking for granted that property is theft, that wealth originates in the exploitation of the workers, and that property rights should not exist at all. It follows that resources should be centrally directed and considered common. Centralized direction requires the concentration of power, inevitably leading to an autocratic dictatorship. Inevitably leads to the use of institutionalized terror.

The Reign of Terror begins with the mobs at the Bastille

A real study of history will show that since the emergence of individual rights of property and liberty as the foundation of political institutions, humanity has been more successful in leaving behind the living standard described by Hobbes as being poor, nasty, brutish, and short. History will also show that anytime, anywhere Marxist ideas have taken hold, a fast degradation of the social order takes place all the way back to Hobbes’ descriptions. The quality of life of the common person, in relative terms, was doubtless better under the most absolute of monarchs than under the XX century communist despots. The monarchs could be charitable at their discretion with what was theirs, in law and in tradition. In addition, the ancient religious institutions of charity were offering education at all levels, hospital and hospice care, servicing leper colonies, and caring for the numerous widows and orphans left by continuous wars and plagues.

The communist system, in its masquerade, aspires to be appreciated as institutional charity. They follow the dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen). Popularized by Marx in 1875, it reflected the empty promise sold to the mobs in 1848 that socialism would be so successful economically that everyone´s needs would be satisfied. Economic theory demonstrated since 1898 the impossibility of economic calculation without market prices which can´t appear without free agents negotiating their valuables -their property. Without individual property and its institutions, there are no economic signals for how to assign scarce resources. The praxis of socialist experimentation during the last two centuries is irrefutable evidence of its failure.

Edward Bellamy (1850-1898)

             Influenced by the same currents, the American socialist Edward Bellamy published the utopian sci-fi novel “Looking Backward, 2000-1887” (1888). He is credited with the phrase “From the cradle to grave” to describe the socialist government promise of state provided full care for free. The phrase was enshrined in a speech by Winston Churchill, in 1943. He explained his limited support to what became in 1945 the system of nationalized healthcare and all types of insurance services in the United Kingdom with the election of a socialist government. Already in 1935, FDR had managed to pass as part of the New Deal the Social Security pension system as a first step in the creation of an extensive safety net of entitlements that have followed ever since.

                These major changes in the political structures that prided themselves on being the birthplace of constitutional limitations to the power and functions of government were the result of frustrated expectations in the newly empowered citizen-voters, from slaves and serfs to women. During the XIX and early XX centuries, universal suffrage became the general rule. This period was also marked by an endless sequel of wars that followed Napoleon´s defeat. Dynasties and empires disappeared, constitutional monarchies emerged as a final attempt for kings to survive, new republics multiplied and returned Europe to a tribal separation. Self-determination led to the rise of Nationalism and ancient conflicts. At the same time, the many versions of socialism spread with the appearance of new media and secular education. The “mob” was officially born. The undercurrent of the influence of the Napoleonic period was the rise of all socialist versions, from anarchic communism to the positivist-scientific movement. All things labeled “democratic” and “social” were in vogue, illustrated by the names of many new political organizations and countries.

This period is also marked by two epochal changes. The first one is a shift in the world’s balance of power. The cost of these convulsions caused the political and economic decline of Europe and the emergence of the United States as the first super-power based on the “power of the people”. The process is evidenced by human emigration without precedent, except in pre-historic times. Millions of people moved from the European continent to the American, settling from Argentina to Alaska. The USA became the major destination, growing from 2 million to over 200 million by 1976.  Parallel to immigration came progress and innovation, investment and productivity, diversity and cultural enrichment, and the highest standard of living. The American identity as a nation of immigrants that believe in liberty and opportunity to pursue happiness seemed well established.

The second epochal change is a gradual loss of confidence in the new science of economics that supported the free enterprise system, labelled “capitalism” by its detractors. As one group of intellectuals declared “God is dead”, another declared “capitalism is dead”. The apparent final evidence was the big panic of The Great Depression. The solutions adopted paved the way for the new concept of a charitable government supported by the self-named “New Economics”. It has since become the Law in most countries where the economic policy of governments relies on regulating the economic life of the nation and the manipulation of money and credit to finance an ever growing “safety net”.

The old Conservative label, and the newer (Classic) Liberal political identities were archived. The New Economics advanced by Lord Maynard Keynes and his disciples was a mild version of the socialist-communist model, just stopping short of the confiscation/nationalization of all property. We forget three important concepts: a) The real value of all property is represented by stable money; b) Less known is the fact that market interest rates are a price and its function is to regulate how much a community spends in the present and how much it invests in preparing for the future; and c) A property right is defined as the ability or power to decide what to do about what is yours, without anybody telling you what to do; the most important part of a property is not having the thing itself, but our possibility of doing what we want with it. It is not necessary to confiscate other people's property if the government can decide about it with regulations and taxes.

Some countries called this Frankenstein model a “mixed economy” or a “social market economy” with great hypocrisy. A bit more honest, the communist party that currently controls red China has labeled their system a “socialist market economy”, which is clearly an oxymoron. Maybe now they are pink China.

In the United States politics, these brands transformed into labels such as The New Deal, Social Security, Affordable Care Act, Minimum Wage Laws, War on Poverty, The Great Society, Medicaid, Medicare, Older Americans Act, Green New Deal, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, SNAP-Supplemental Nutrition Program, WIC Nutrition for Women and Children, SIS Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutrition and Head Start in public schools that pays for food and child care, LIHEAP pays electric bills, PELL Grants for college and college loans, and the list goes on. Among the more recent ones are OBAMA PHONES, and now BIDEN HIGH SPEED AFFORDABLE INTERNET and Loan Forgiveness. There are also numerous tax exemptions for lower income voters. 

In addition, through regulations, the government decides winners and losers in the economy. It also can set prices and prohibit competitive imports and exports. It also directs investment by steering public spending in public works to favored locations. FEMA subsidizes catastrophic insurance programs that favor the wealthy in rebuilding their vacation homes in the path of hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. These are Federal programs. Many states have additional programs funded by their own budgets, and so do the big cities. Two examples are the programs that have emerged as part of the “Sanctuary City” ordinances and the latest Cash Assistance Program that gives without conditions $ 500 a month for 18 months to pre-selected neighbors.

Currently, the permanent charitable activities of the federal government represent about two thirds of the total mandatory federal government spending. Newer programs, financed from annually approved new programs are not included. How are these hundreds of billions of dollars of charitable activities paid for? Is it from donations, voluntary gifts from the citizens? Are they donations from large corporations? Are they donations from the employees of all government agencies? Are they donated by the President and Vice-President? The obvious answer is no. It is not charity. It is not benevolence.

In the old system, such funds were provided mostly out of their deep pockets by the grace of the kings and dukes, or popes and bishops. Other funds were spent by charitable organizations sustained by voluntary donations. A few institutions were funded by subscriptions or memberships of the communities. It is not charity either.  The price was fealty.

In the newer autocratic dictatorships, it comes from the accumulated wealth appropriated by the ruling oligarchy, regardless of ideology. Not very different from the old system. The distribution of anything is done in the pecking-order mandated by the party and well-illustrated by Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, in exchange for total obedience enforced by terror.

Animal Farm by George Orwell (1945), a satire of the Soviet regime

What happened in the more participatory constitutional republics that were established by citizens to limit the power of government? Protecting property, limiting taxes and eliminating abuses of power were the objectives. What about the United States?

The answer is in the transformation of the tax base.

Early in the XX century, the proportion of the takings in taxes of what the people produced was less than 6% and budgets were balanced. Last year, the federal government’s cut of the wealth people created was beyond 33%. Inflation during the current government has reached 20% in three years. This has the same effect as a tax by reducing the value of what producers are allowed to keep. Inflation is caused by printing money in excess of the rate of growth of the economy to finance the deficit. To top it all, the deficit that has been growing out of control by borrowing since 1950. The public debt has reached trillions of dollars. This is an additional taking, but from the future generations that are just now beginning to feel what it means to be poorer than their parents’ generation.

Why has there not been another revolt to return the federal government to its limits? Remember the Boston Tea Party?

The explanation is quite simple. Robin Hood, the charitable Marxist hero of the poor has been directing the process. A majority of the people hardly pay any taxes, but they receive the “charity” of the government. They vote.

The truth is revealed with a simple review of the current budget pattern. The top 1% income earners pay 46% of the total federal income tax collected. If it is expanded to the top 10%, they fund 75% of the revenue. In comparison, the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 2.3% of the total.

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1855), an economist and politician, is considered by many to be the most effective writer in simple terms of complex economic ideas. While debating the socialists during the Third French Revolution in 1848, he exposed and denounced was what in English has been translated as “legal plunder”, and “spoliation”. In his words:

 “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted to violate property instead of protecting it, then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. “How do we recognize it? It is simple.  All you have to do is examine if the law takes from some what belongs to them, only to give it to others who don’t own it. You have to examine if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of others by doing something the citizen could not do without committing a crime.”

 

Are we there yet? Which version of Robin Hood are your children reading in school? Which one did you read?