>I just can't understand how so many people denigrate people that are trying to help.. NO LOLS..
The intentions matter in a moral sense. But if we are concerned with more than just the salvation of the donor, then results matter.
Look at the high-rise federal housing projects of the 50s and 60s, such as Pruitt-Igoe, Stateway Gardens, Robert Taylor Homes, and Cabrini Green. All were designed and built with the loftiest of intentions: A clean, well-lighted place to live, just like the banlieuex Parisiennes.
The slums they replaced were functioning neighborhoods, in which people worked and lived in the same area and doctors lived alongside dockworkers. The current (new urbanist) fashion is to build mixed use structures just like Jane Jacobs extolled, but such development usually happens with a generous helping of tax abatements and subsidies. We are now trying to recreate artificially what arose organically, but which was destroyed by planners armed with their intentions.
Can we agree that the results were disastrous? I am thankful that we learned:
youtube.com
As for Habitat for Humanity houses, one cannot fault the noblesse oblige among the office workers who show up for such projects. But social utility would probably be maximized if, instead of making an in-kind donation of employee time, the sponsor company were to pay for an experienced, licensed contractor to build the project. At least there would be someone to sue if the house fell apart.
Similarly, consider the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, during which numerous weekend warriors decided to drive to NO to help out, only to be turned away. The altruistic intentions did not help. The money used for travel would have been far more useful as funds for increased rescue operations by trained personnel. |
