When I mentioned before that Warren Buffett could be a frugal role model, and praised the fact that his life was organized in such a way as to make such a gift possible.
In the back of my mind, I had always had it in my head that there would be a backlash against him for giving away his money; and now it has begun. This article is so ridiculous in its presumptive pseudo-intellectualism that I just don’t know where to begin. Perhaps I will just let it speak for itself:
It is Buffett’s incomplete, inconsistent economic understanding that vexes the capitalists of the world. We are surprised and disappointed that such a free market legend could fail to understand the basic nature of capital: that capital is always more productive in competitive hands rather than charity cases
I love the image of this Lew Rockwell regurgitation machine of a blogger telling Warren F***ing Buffett that he has an “incomplete, inconsistent economic understanding”. The real shocker though, is this gem:
As a consequence of this lack of rigor, the real legacy of Warren Buffett, the capitalistic creation of an incomprehensible amount of wealth, will be forever overshadowed by his philanthropy, confusing his greatest gift to society - his capitalism - with the lesser gift of giving the resultant wealth away.
“…forever overshadowed by his philanthropy…” Yes folks, there actually are people who think that way, who mistake “capital” for a living breathing entity or worse yet, as carrying an implicit moral code that somehow Mr. Buffett has violated by not hoarding his money any longer. Here is someone who honestly believes that the accumulation of wealth is the only worthwhile pursuit, the only morally acceptable course of action.
Fortunately, this brand of radical atomists, who believed Margaret Thatcher when she said “There is no society”, who call themselves “libertarian” while exalting in negative freedoms ala Pierre Joseph Proudhon (”whoever puts his hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy’”) and continuing to make the same intellectual missteps that this brand of petty-bourgeois exotica masquerading as economic or political thought has always made.
In the history of Anarchist politics, there has long been one central problem; reconciling two basically contradictory tendencies: a personalistic commitment to individual autonomy and a collectivist commitment to social freedom. Libertarian economics, which is more correctly Stirnerite or Proudhonist Individual anarchism, chooses to ignore the elephant in the room. When speaking of politics, everything is atomist, a number of rational individual actors, etc. etc.
However, when it comes to economics, suddenly a flip-flop occurs, and the very same people become collectivist - exalting the “free market” as a sort of collective space in whic, through the movement of capital and the application of individual talents, all will prosper. If I am understanding the article correctly, the authors complaint is that he feels that Buffett, having this incredible gift, has a responsibility to use it for the good of the market (all those in the market, that is), and not to remove it from the market via philanthropy. Social responsibility through sound investing, or something similiar.
The problem with this, and the things that always trips up libertarians when I debate with them, is that their ideas of what is the best use of capital or is best for the market are at odds with their stated individualist bent. Either one is an anti-authoritarian, or one is not. To say that I must not submit to the government (while never mounting an insurrection, even on paper) but that I must submit to their view of how my own respources should be used is hypocritical, or at the very least, childishly naive.
Buffett, Gates, Carnegie, they all gave it all away, and believed that everyone should have to give it away, arguing that estate taxes were the only way to keep America from growing an indolent, useless, monied class. For them, it was never about the money - it was about something else, something they loved doing, something they were so passionate about that they wanted to do it all the time. When it became a job, they walked away. That is the hardest thing to understand when your viewpoint is all about the money.
Tags: frugality, philanthropy, Warren Buffet
These are the ramblings of 
Having written the article, I can tell you that you are not understanding the article correctly (at least not on this point). By the way, no trackback?
First of all, the purpose of my article was to point out that Buffett contributed a vast amount of good to society by way of his investments. By following his own self-interested code, that,
Buffett ended up contributing a vast amount of wealth to the world. To me, it is this accomplishment that should be lauded over and above his philanthropy. It’s not that Buffett shouldn’t have the right to give it all away. It’s not that he shouldn’t give it all away. He has the freedom to do that which he wants. He has the obligation to himself to do what he wants.
However, it irks me that one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time fails to see what good his wealth has done in his own hands. It also bothers me that he can be so inconsistent in his ideology as to say that wealth is better managed under his watch for himself but not apply that idea to others.
I am further confounded by Buffett believing that other wealthy individuals who would rather have their wealth passed on to their progeny (or whoever they so desire) must either donate it to charity or pay it out in large portion to the wasteful U.S. government. That’s a damn snobby view to have: Buffett knows best for everyone else and therefore all should succumb to his view (Such is the basic paradigm of anyone who would argue that the government impose taxation on others).
And the world cheers him on - the same world that would have condemned him had he decided not to donate it all to charity. And Buffett is happy because everyone affirms his decision. When I take a contrary view and point out certain inconsistencies, I get taken to the shed.
You oversimplify my view to an absurd point in an effort to file me away (likely in a file labeled “bloggers I’ve pwnd”). I do not “honestly believe” what you think I believe. No where in my post on Buffett did I imply such a view regarding the utmost importance of wealth accumlation. You can read here, here, and here for examples that contradict your claim. I respect having an internally consistent view of the world. For me, that means living an enjoyable, creative life that is free. In a truly free society, you make your life what you want - and as you would seem to espouse, that doesn’t necessarily mean you need a lot of money and/or material possessions (And I would agree). But you should be free to choose your own path.
You conclude:
This “gotcha” moment is misplaced. In the Buffett article I say, “It’s laudable that Buffett wants to make the world a better place with his wealth via donating it to the Gates Foundation - to do so of his own volition is what liberty is all about.” How do you reconcile your statement with my view, as an anarchist, that “to do so of his own volition is what liberty is all about”? And if you read through the comments on digg.com, you’ll find the other libertarians and anarchists saying the same.
This highlights a huge difference between the libertarian/anarchist view and the collectivist/Buffet view. Though libertarians and anarchists might tell you what ought be done, they will never force you to do that thing. Collectiviists/democrats/republicans tell you what you should do and use the government to make it so. This seems like a pretty important distinction that you seem to be missing.
King Regards,
Neal
Neal, it’s useful to point out exactly what the benefits of wealth creation are, exactly. Wealthy societies are generally better educated, healthier, and more peaceful than poorer societies. Societies which trade freely (you know, the capitalist ones) are almost always wealthier, a lot wealthier, than those which don’t. Buffett has done quite a bit to feed the poor, cure diseases, and make life better just by creating wealth. His charitable donations are minor in comparison.
As for the AIDS cure, when it comes it will almost certainly be financed by capitalists; whether through donation or investment is of secondary importance. The first priority is to create the wealth.