Activism vs. Charity

My comment:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/19/nobody-is-perfect-everything-is-commensurable/#comment-166887

I feel like activism is also about making institutions work more effectively – not just stopping police from killing unarmed civilians, but changing the police into an organization where that simply happens much less often, and effectively punishes those responsible when it does.

It’s probably hard to quantify this sort of benefit, but I’d like to see it steelmanned. A Roman citizen might conclude it’s more important to tithe to the church than spend his time on politics, but if the empire falls that decision doesn’t look quite as good.

-

Amanda L. comment (excerpt):
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/19/nobody-is-perfect-everything-is-commensurable/#comment-166750

In fact, the argument that activism has potentially higher value than efficient charity is structurally the same as the argument that MIRI has potentially higher value than efficient charity. Namely: efficient charity allows you to save individual, present-day lives with some certainty. But MIRI gives you a (small but non negligible) chance of changing the course of history by averting an extinction event. This has astronomical benefit, because the potential future of humanity stretches out very long (infinitely long?)

Similarly, I don’t think activists merely aim to create a 20-year moratorium on unjustified police killings. I think they want (a small but non negligible shot at) changing the course of society by creating a permanent change in how non-black people view black people, such that the entire class of race-based unjustified police killings, and all the attendant unfairness/fear/resentment, will be someday eliminated for the lifespan of our society, and all societies influenced by our society. Which could potentially be very long.

-

Ian James comment:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/19/nobody-is-perfect-everything-is-commensurable/#comment-166808

Cards on the table: I think this post, along with the entire rationalist focus on charitable giving, is completely wrongheaded. The U.S. has a higher level of charitable giving than other developed countries in part because we have a lower level of income redistribution. (Source.) We give 1.85% of GDP while redistributing 8%. On the other hand, Austria (which has the highest level of redistribution in the OECD) gives 0.17% of GDP while redistributing 18%, for a net increase of 8.32% over the U.S.! (Source.) So if you don’t look into it too closely, the American way seems more generous; but if you dig deeper, it becomes apparent that we prefer the warm fuzzy feeling of voluntary giving to the cold hard calculations of potential increased utility from mandatory giving (i.e., taxes). Seems utterly anti-consequentialist to me.

But wait, it gets worse! Wealthy Americans donate less to charity as a percentage of their income than other groups. Not only do the 1% want to avoid being taxed (and they mostly get their wish on these matters) they want the rest of us to make up the difference! And the worst part is, we do it for them, year after year, because we feel guilty.

You might argue that redistribution won’t help anyone because gubmint. I’m actually highly sympathetic to this argument. I’ve been to the DMV. I’ve used healthcare.gov–twice! Contemporary progressives are generally in favor of increasing redistribution, not by having the government provide more services directly, but by just giving people money–whether it’s through a guaranteed income, or wage subsidies (similar to the EITC). Dylan Matthews at Vox, among many others, has been beating this drum for a while now.

There are three legitimate economic concerns one might raise when considering these policies: inflation might rise, labor supply might decrease, and future economic growth might suffer due to higher taxation on top incomes. This article gives a good explanation of why inflation wouldn’t rise under a properly implemented basic income. The labor supply thing is a little bit trickier. So far, empirical studies of basic income programs have indicated that, contra Econ 101, labor supply effects won’t be much of a problem (see the Dylan Matthews articles above). Finally, I would point out that the conservative economist Milton Friedman–the last economist one would ever suspect to endorse a policy that caused inflation or decreased labor supply–nonetheless endorsed a form of basic income.

The third issue (effects on growth) is the most controversial. The strongest bit of evidence, in my opinion, is that mid-20th century growth rates were much higher despite the fact that there were much higher tax rates on top incomes. Thus, when you try to correlate growth rates and the top marginal tax rate over time, it looks like a higher tax rate is correlated with increased growth. In any case, almost nobody (except maybe Piketty) supports returning to a mid-century level of taxation. To create a decent basic income, you would only have to raise taxes by about 3% of GDP ($480 billion), while redirecting money from some other programs (play around with this if you’re curious).

Finally, there is at least some tentative evidence that inequality itself might harm economic growth.

To sum up, these issues strike at the heart of the political inadequacy of LessWrong-style “rationalism” as I understand it from reading this blog. The wealthy will always prefer to pay taxes as close to zero as possible, while donating a paltry amount of their income to charity. They will then reason about this state of affairs in a laughably transparent motivated way, and infect every corner of public discourse with that motivated reasoning (a process that used to be called “ideology,” and probably still should be). Meanwhile, they (the wealthy) are not much happier than they would be paying higher taxes (because diminishing marginal utility of income), but tens of millions of Americans remain in soul-crushing poverty. And to escape that condition the poor need more money than we (the ones in the middle) can ever give them directly. Being “actively repulsed by most protests, regardless of cause or alignment” won’t really fly here. You have to pick a side.

P.S. I can’t believe I forgot to link Oscar Wilde’s incredible essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” I can’t even summarize it. Just read it.

-

kernly comment:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/19/nobody-is-perfect-everything-is-commensurable/#comment-166882

Charity is nothing, politics is everything. Programs like Medicaid will always be more effective than any charity could be. They change the very nature of our resource allocation system, while charities can only ever halfheartedly treat the symptoms arising from problems in our resource allocation system.

Of course, the argument you make stands pretty strong against getting invested in political fights of little or no consequence. But the thing is, the main political battle now is between two ideologies, one which considers any change to our resource allocation system verboten (except to provide provisions that protect current beneficiaries) and the other that, well, doesn’t. That makes the political battle The Most Important Thing, by far, bar nothing.

However I still agree with what you said about Not Doing The Best Thing and Evil not being equivalent. Definitions made for man, not vice versa, and nobody Does The Best Thing so set achievable goals. In this case, the goal should be “support changing the resource allocation system,” not “fruitlessly try to ameliorate the resource allocation system’s failings by personal action.” IOW – get involved in politics!

I feel like I haven’t discouraged charity enough, let me try a little harder. Changes to our resource allocation system are a result of political will, which comes from people realizing that there are problems with our resource allocation system. Changes to that system – the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, recently the ACA – tend to be long lasting if not semi-permanent. Giving to charity might succeed in ameliorating the symptoms, in which case it forestalls real changes. There’s a good reason why I don’t consider charity a ‘real change’ – the thing is that charitable giving is and will always be pro-cyclical rather than counter-cyclical. People have the most spare when times are good. There is the most need when times are bad – right when people have the least ability to justify spending money on charity.

The wonderful thing about government programs, and why they deserve to be called real changes to our resource allocation system, is that they are automatically counter-cyclical. When people suddenly get a lot poorer, simultaneously a lot more of them qualify for unemployment insurance, SNAP, medicaid, and ACA subsidies. That’s a Big Deal. Unlike charity, it is a semi-permanent shoring up of the very fabric of our society.

The good thing is that people don’t actually donate that much to charity, so we don’t suffer much consequence from relying on a pro-cyclical aid system. But Mr. Alexander, that would change if absurd amounts of people started giving absurd amounts of money! When times were good, well, we’d make quite a dent in our societal problems! Probably the hungry or homeless would be scarce indeed. But when the worm turns, we would be devoured. During times of extreme economic hardship and uncertainty, even those who retain the ability to give won’t be able to justify continued contributions at the same level. The system will unravel, the safety net will be revealed to be made of a few strands of silk, and we will plunge into a very deep hole compared to where we would be if we’d just gone about changing things in the appropriate manner. Thanks, Scott Alexander.