Thank you for that contribution to a necessary issue. Actually, it goes further than this essay takes it. Depending on philanthropy to combat the effects of poverty is actually unjust — according to John Locke.

Locke, the author of of the philosophical foundation of conservatism, is famous for characterizing the proper role of government as being that of a “Night Watchman.” That means, however, protecting persons and property from material harm. Poverty is materially harmful.

Locke also famously defined injustice as arbitrariness in human relations (to be “subject to the arbitrary will” of other person). The actions of philanthropists, however laudable, are inherently arbitrary.

Thus, according to Locke, for a society to depend on philanthropy to protect its citizens from the material harm poverty entails is unjust. At the same time, it must protect against such harm.

Unfortunately, alleviating poverty through taxes/redistribution is also inherently arbitrary. Fortunately, I have discovered a way to eliminate poverty that, far from depending on taxes/redistribution, eliminates the need for both.

If curious, a brief (“5 min read”) summary of my proposal is here in Medium. If it matters, I do have an M.A. in economics.