In her writings today, Ederlyn wrote “I suppose that patronizing as it may be, any philanthropy that results in money and time flowing downhill should be encouraged.”[1] I understand this statement, the peoples of the third and fourth worlds are in a truly bad state, and truly do need the money and time that the first and second world nations and populations can send. Yet I must respectfully disagree.[2]

Some time ago, I wrote a brief post about why the Church’s “option for the poor” is not the same as welfare.[3] It consisted mostly of a quote from a Jamaican Archbishop, telling the writer how it is more important that the human dignity of the people be preserved and enhanced than it is that they receive monetary or material goods from those who have an excess. This quote, in addition to disposing of the idea of a welfare state, also disposes of the idea of philanthropy being necessarily good, regardless of the form in which it comes, or the attitudes behind it. I do not, by this, wish or mean to absolve those who have much from giving of themselves, both in time and in money. I do, however, want to point out how harmful our misguided giving has been. We have been giving, through the International Monetary Fund(IMF), through the World Bank, and through other organizations, millions and billions of dollars to third world governments all over the globe. Even beyond the corruption involved in these efforts, what we have primarily succeeded in doing is providing excuses for these peoples not to help themselves. There has been no change for the better the world over, because these people are dependent on the IMF, the World Bank, on the United Nations, on the United States. True reform must come from within. True improvement must come by giving the peoples there the means (in tools and education) to help themselves.

If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, it is also true that the price of prosperity is responsibility. Except for that tiny, guilty-feeling minority who depend on trust funds, people grow more prosperous in direct proportion to their own effort, and their own acceptance of responsibility. The free nations of the world have various standards of living. Some of that is luck(being limited to a few islands necessarily impacts the standard of living in Japan), some of that is history (not having been all that free all that long ago impacts any number of nations, businesses have not been developing in these countries), some of that is the level of free-ness they have. This last takes further thought. Looking at our own country, to the extent that we have implemented a dependency state instead of requiring that people take personal responsibility for their own lives, costs have gone up (see health care) and standards of living have not (see the welfare-dependent poor). To the extent that we have implemented welfare, and emphasized diversity and emotion over substance, our cities have grown less civilized. This holds true not only of our inner cities, but also of Appalachia. Where illiteracy abounds, the standard of living goes down, with few exceptions. It is the rare man who can found a successful company not knowing how to read and do basic math.

A perfect example of this is the rain forests. There are ways, we have demonstrated industries, that could thrive in the rain forest without destroying them. Further, we have proven that slash and burn agriculture is neither profitable or environmentally sound. So why is it still the norm? Because instead of helping these people start such industries, we are busy buying up rain forest land. Instead of helping them to help themselves, we are giving them a few livestock, some homes, the odd school or medical center. Instead of helping them help themselves, we give their governments money. Philanthropy for its own sake will continue this cycle, it takes a much stronger drive to effect the true and lasting changes the third world regions need.

[1] Lacson, Ederlyn. “The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer” 2005-05-19 http://www.livejournal.com/users/baranoouji/211153.html
[2] Reading her replies to “cathkitten,” Ederlyn has a more complex understanding of this than I am responding to here. I do not understand her actual position, so I cannot address its accuracy or inaccuracy. My response then is limited to just the quote I provide, and should not be taken in any way shape or form to reflect on Ederlyn, as I am merely using her as a jump-off point.
[3] Schierer, Luke. “Random Unfinished Thoughts” 2005-03-09 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20050309-1140/20050309-1140