The choice a person has is to look at what society is willing to pay for a service or product and decide whether he or she wishes to participate at that level of income.

In the case of someone who decides he or she wishes to go to Zambia or anywhere else to “help,” the free market will tell that person IN ADVANCE what that work is worth TO THE FREE MARKET. Generally speaking unless an individual is privately wealthy or is sponsored by government, simply adding an ADDITIONAL mouth to feed in a poor area is worth absolutely nothing. I am not speaking of the intention here. I am speaking of the impartial evaluation of the Free Market.

To simply make a decision to go to New Orleans and add yet another mouth to feed, and bed to provide, and all the other services a living being requires isn’t worth very much, unless a skill that is needed is provided. For example, a medical doctor volunteering to work pro bono who has a needed skill is a wonderful thing. However, not so if that person decides that he or she will require someone else to support him or her while there.

Every one of us is a resource devourer. We need the world to support us. In turn, the free market tells us where it needs help. If we decide to do something that the free market tells us is worth zero, that, of course, is our choice. However, if then the person lives in poverty having to apply for welfare payments, that too is a choice.

The same is true with education. The free market tells the population that it needs certain skills. If a student spends his or her time sassing the teachers, and generally being a delinquent, has two children by the age of 18, and then turns around and tells us that the Free Market has failed him or her, that is laughable.

Same with the lady you are describing here. Her INTENTION has nothing to do with the free market.

If she chooses to do something that the free market tells her isn’t worth anything, that’s exactly what she will be paid for doing it.

She can work as hard as she wishes in the slums of Africa, but if she is providing another mouth to feed and needs housing and medical care, etc, she is becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution, regardless of her intention.

In the first example, the lady has the freedom (thanks to capitalism) to choose to give of her time and money to help others and if she chooses to then she has many opportunities to align herself with other great non-profit/religious/charity organizations in the US that can support her.

In the second example, your father in law has to freedom (thanks to capitalism) to pursue a lifestyle that he finds rewarding in ways that are not just financial but physical, emotional, etc. (hopefully or else maybe he made the wrong choice). If he decides that he wants to be rewarded in more of a financial sense then he has the freedom (thanks to capitalism) to decide to pursue a new career.

Contrast both of those scenarios with a communist type of system that regardless of how benevolent you may think the people in control are – then guess what? – the bottom line is that the lady or your father in law does not have the personal freedom to choose for themselves and make for themselves their own destiny – rather under a communist like system it is someone else deciding who should do what or in a socialist like system who should be rewarded for your hard work.

I will choose capitalism/freedom every time and in cases where there is a shortcoming then that is where non-profit/religious/charity initiatives can do what they do best.

It is nice when someone makes a decision to give up their own personal gain to help others, but that’s why those people are to be praised. They SACRIFICE. If people could go help the poor, give things away, or offer clothing or shelter to others without giving up any part of their lifestyle, it wouldn’t really take that big a person to do it, would it?

Capitalism allows for the greatest amount of wealth to be created. However, since we are not a society that utilizes slave labor, although in some instances we are close, capitalism must fit within a larger context. Thus, the fact that we are the richest nation but do not have universal healthcare makes people angry.

Capitalism should reward people like you father-in-law and mother. However, when the goal is solely making money (i.e. financial instruments) and not producing things that people need, the balance becomes skewed. Value and values become warped.

I’m glad you wrote the article, because it rises above the usual dogma and tries to question frameworks. Whenever there’s a simple back-and-forth type argument it often means something’s getting missed and one needs to rise above it by being able to see how the two extremes can actually play into and support each other. I think this is going to be required more and more over the next 10-20 years for those who hope to prosper and function well in the world as it develops. The past does not equal the future.