Pecunia Non Olet* Print
Written by Tim Worstall   
Thursday, 08 February 2007
To my mind the most important point that the late, great, Milton Friedman made was that intentions don't matter, outcomes do. It's at the heart of many of my own arguments with those calling themselves liberals who fail to see some of the points made by classical liberals: yes, we all want the poor to be richer, for example, it's just that we disagree on the best way to encourage that outcome.

Unfortunately, Friedman's point doesn't seem to have reached everyone, as Oliver Walston tells us in The Independent . Having thought up an intriguing way to raise money from the farming and supermarket sector (on an entirely voluntary basis) to spend on development in poorer countries he contacts Oxfam and gets a response he really didn't expect:
After a few days the reply came in the shape of a telephone call. The answer was eerily familiar: "Thanks, but no thanks." Their reasoning was as simple as it was surprising. They were unwilling to accept any money from supermarkets and thus, with great regret, they had to refuse my offer.

Had I challenged the crack cocaine dealers or the child pornographers to match the farmers' funds, I could, perhaps, have understood Oxfam's refusal. But to suggest Tesco and Sainsbury and Waitrose are so tainted that any money they provide is dirty money is unjust, unbelievable and (if you happen to be an African farmer) unhelpful. Meanwhile, Oxfam preserves its purity and the Third World pays the price.
Personally I would happily take money from crack cocaine dealers in order to alleviate destitution for pecunia non olet * but obviously Oxfam thinks that ideological purity is more important than that.

* Yes, I did have to look it up.
Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!
busy