Grasce.

In your scenario, no I do not believe that the man buying the shoes is positively harming anyone. By engaging in peaceful economic activity he is likely contributing in small part to the economic betterment of humanity.

However, I think what you’re getting at is that he (as a comparatively rich guy) should have a social responsibility to help someone much worse off than he. I agree in large part. I do not know if the 25c to Kids Against Hunger jar would be the optimal way for him to do that, though I would certainly be in favor of social pressure to donate to that.

I think charity and aid and so forth are more effective and fulfilling when you help people you can personally interact with. And I believe that is something that state welfare has crowded out. See, most people in the US and UK (for example) were members of mutual aid societies prior to state welfare. These voluntarily-funded societies fulfilled the roles of health insurance, poverty assistance, life insurance, etc. on an interpersonal level and as far as we can measure they did a more efficient job than state welfare. The state crowded out this voluntary, personal aid and replaced it with impersonal, bureaucratic welfarism. One of the best books on this subject is From Mutual Aid to Welfare State by historian D. Bieto.

While I do believe in a social responsibility to the very poor, I do not believe state welfare or state aid is an effective or moral way to channel it. It’s counterproductive. This is especially the case in developing countries, where state aid is overall positively harmful.