Philanthropy vs. unproductive charity. The case of Baron Maurice de Hirsch

In Argentina today it has become essential for the State to provide assistance to a large portion of the population; nevertheless, this social work lacks purpose unless it is used to encourage those who are assisted to fend for themselves. Otherwise, the beneficiaries would be condemned to virtual indigence, as they would be indirectly excluded from productive society. This concept of philanthropy as opposed to charity is not new; and it is interesting to note that more than one century ago, in Argentina, a singularly successful philanthropic undertaking was carried out that was imbued with this ideology. In 1891 Baron Maurice de Hirsch founded the Jewish Colonization Association, which was to become one of the greatest philanthropic undertakings of its time, through which a gigantic experiment in social welfare was carried out, based on the organized immigration of thousands of people from the Russian Empire to Argentina, with the aim of setting up agricultural colonies. Immigrants were to be given the opportunity to own their land, although this was not a gift, as they were required to pay for it, just as they were required to repay all the loans in kind received during their transfer through to their first harvests, as well as the corresponding interest. This paper represents a first step in the study of this enterprise. In it, we will center our attention on the views on philanthropy held by Baron de Hirsch, illustrating them by reference to the various projects carried out on the basis of that ideologyBaron Maurice de Hirsch, Jewish Colonization Association, philanthropy

Mixing Oil and Water: Reconciling the Substantial Factor and Results-With-In-The-Risk Approaches to Proximate Cause

Most recently, however, the courts—the entities mandated to apply proximate cause during the course of the analysis of liability for negligence—appear to have brokered a peace between the dueling conceptualizations of proximate cause. As applied, the proximate cause analysis grounded in substantial factor appears to be yielding the same results with respect to liability as the proximate cause analysis grounded in foreseeability. It is the thesis of this Article that such a peace has, in fact, been brokered; whether approached from the means of substantial factor or result-within-the-risk, the end is the finding of common ground for the purpose of the proximate cause analysis. This Article first summarizes and analyzes the foreseeability based result-within-the-risk approach to proximate cause. Next, the Article summarizes and analyzes the substantial factor test. Finally, the Article explains and analyzes the common ground that appears to have emerged between the two disparate approaches

Mixing Oil and Water: Reconciling the Substantial Factor and Result-within-the-Risk Approaches to Proximate Cause

Most recently, however, the courts—the entities mandated to apply proximate cause during the course of the analysis of liability for negligence—appear to have brokered a peace between the dueling conceptualizations of proximate cause. As applied, the proximate cause analysis grounded in substantial factor appears to be yielding the same results with respect to liability as the proximate cause analysis grounded in foreseeability. It is the thesis of this Article that such a peace has, in fact, been brokered; whether approached from the means of substantial factor or result-within-the-risk, the end is the finding of common ground for the purpose of the proximate cause analysis. This Article first summarizes and analyzes the foreseeability based result-within-the-risk approach to proximate cause. Next, the Article summarizes and analyzes the substantial factor test. Finally, the Article explains and analyzes the common ground that appears to have emerged between the two disparate approaches