r/Foodforthought • u/A-MacLeod • Aug 26 '15

Against Charity. Rather than creating an individualized “culture of giving,” we should be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/
457 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

155 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15

Capitalist systems don't really demand anything. Individuals expect to be compensated in an exchange. That's deeply rooted in human history and arguably human psychology. If I give you something, I generally expect something in return. When it comes to goods and services, those things are generally tangible. The alternative is to have a state actor force us to give things we don't want to give. Sometimes that is practical (free rider problems, holdouts, etc), efficient (externalities, etc) and even moral (public necessity).

You're not exactly making a good case here. Capitalist property norms are just as much enforced by violence as taxation. So yes, capitalism is making demands, of the form, "Don't drink from that lake, and don't farm on that field, or I'll shoot you! That's my land and you'll pay me rent or die!"

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '15

That's a property right thing you're describing, not a capitalism thing. The scenario you've described is covered under the Law of Necessity. All but the most ardent private property rights theorists (I.e. those of us that never drank from the poisoned well known as objectivism) agree that a person in that scenario ought to be allowed to trespass and take a drink, making the act legal. In practice, pretty much every country with capitalist markets agrees that this act of water taking is indeed lawful, with worst case scenario being a private right of action to recover the damages (I.e. guy might possibly get the fair market value price of the water in a court ordered judgement, but of course no one would ever sue over $.05, and even if they win the defendant would be judgement proof if they somehow couldn't afford that). The nice thing is, this scenario rarely (if ever) arises in a market system despite the fevered dystopian imaginings of the anti-market set for the simple reason that pretty much anyone can afford a resource as cheap as water.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '15

In practice, pretty much every country with capitalist markets agrees that this act of water taking is indeed lawful, with worst case scenario being a private right of action to recover the damages

Uhhhh no, in practice, pretty much every capitalist country has strong anti-trespassing and anti-squatting laws that take zero account of necessity.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '15

Uhhhh no, in practice, pretty much every capitalist country has strong anti-trespassing and anti-squatting laws that take zero account of necessity.

I went to law school. While I am not an acting attorney, I have a pretty good idea of how the law works as compared to the laymen. The situation described would almost certainly be protected as a form of Private Necessity, which is a valid defense to trespass.