3 ms·

I know many libertarians here will not like this comment, and it is slightly OT, but I don't like charity. Charity is like weather, very unreliable and you don'

I know many libertarians here will not like this comment, and it is slightly OT, but I don't like charity. Charity is like weather, very unreliable and you don't want modern economy rely on it (and often when needed, there is actually too little charity). I think every society needs proper social assistance/redistribution mechanisms; unfortunately, this is difficult (if not impossible) to do without "coercion" (but I don't consider taxes to be a bad thing). In addition, I consider charity to be very condescending. It makes recipient dependent, in terms of power relations, on donor. Many wealthy people use charity to rationalize their empire building, and that's a symptom of this power dynamics. For example, I do find Linus Torvalds lot more charitable than Bill Gates. Gates took money from one group of people (having them buy Windows) and used this power to decide to give it to other group of people based on what he thought is important. Torvalds just left the money on the table, so the society could decide what to do with them. Even though I agree that Gates' choices what to do with money are really good, Torvalds did pretty much the same without the power grab. In other words, we are led to believe that Gates' actions are better just because we can measure them (in terms of money spent), but it's not obvious that is really the case. (Just to quickly clarify - I am not against transfer of consumption pie to people like Gates, I am against transfer of power they have in the society. Money can designate both, unfortunately.) Ultimately, I think charity is just a device for people to believe they are better than they really are. If you absolutely have to do it, do it anonymously without much ceremony, don't rationalize any power grabs with it (for example, don't avoid paying taxes just in order to put the money to charity), and let the recipient decide on their own what they want to do with the money. I guess the disagreements will come down to whether or not you trust the society to do the right thing. But if you don't trust the society, why would you want to be charitable at all? Although this should be read with caution. The above only makes sense in reasonably democratic societies. Then building a charity, with someone's name attached, is a non-transparent power grab from what should be a transparent democratic process. But in undemocratic society, there is really no difference, and it may as well be better for a different wealthy individual to decide. So in a sense the above is a first-world problem; charity is, in my view, simply inferior technology compared to democratic consensus. Finally (libertarians listen!), I think there are technology solutions that could help to avoid relying on government only, but they are not much pursued.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
What you are looking for is charities/NPO's which are accountable for their actions and results. I do not think that is common now, nor is it common in the government.
- Retric 11y ago
  There is a lot of accountability in the US government, and little to none in many governments around the world.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    I do not think that's correct. I think the rhetoric is, or has become, stronger than the reality. For example the war on drugs, affordable housing, affirmative action, etc. The proposed intentions have overruled the disastrous results.
    - Retric 11y ago
      I think it's important to separate the organization of the US government from the politics of the US government. The office of management and budget for example provides a lot of oversight. There are a lot of eyes on every dolor spent by the government and many internal and external watchdogs. That said, the high level goals are clearly up for debate. People who feel the EPA or Social Security Administration needs to be dismantled don't really care about how efficient it is internally. Also many things are internally imposed such as the SS being is prevented by law from investing in anything except government bonds which is arguably a huge issue, but that's outside of pure graft that is pervasive in much of the world. PS: Anyway, my point was as bad as people think the US government is there are many far worse examples.
michaelt 11y ago
I guess the disagreements will come down to whether or not you trust the society to do the right thing. But if you don't trust the society, why would you want to be charitable at all? My country's society != my country's government != humanity as a whole. I believe that giving £5000 worth of anti-malaria nets to people in countries like Malawi and DRC [1] saves more lives than paying £5000 in tax, of which only about £50 would end up in the foreign aid budget [2]. That's not because I think people are evil or society is bad - it's because politicians are part of a system that imposes certain incentives, and they can only do so much. Politicians simply think voters would vote them out of office if they increased foreign aid at the expense of making substantial cuts to health, welfare, education, policing, roads, and so on. If I've identified what I believe is the most efficient way of doing good, why introduce middlemen when at best they would do the same thing, and at worst they might be ninety-nine percent less efficient? Ultimately, I think charity is just a device for people to believe they are better than they really are. If a person legitimately wanted to become better than they are, how should they go about it if not through generosity of spirit and action? [1] https://www.againstmalaria.com/ https://www.againstmalaria.com/ [2] http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/mar/20/uk-aid-spend-important-works http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/mar/20/uk...

dylanjermiah 11y ago

What you are looking for is charities/NPO's which are accountable for their actions and results. I do not think that is common now, nor is it common in the government.

Retric 11y ago
There is a lot of accountability in the US government, and little to none in many governments around the world.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  I do not think that's correct. I think the rhetoric is, or has become, stronger than the reality. For example the war on drugs, affordable housing, affirmative action, etc. The proposed intentions have overruled the disastrous results.
  - Retric 11y ago
    I think it's important to separate the organization of the US government from the politics of the US government. The office of management and budget for example provides a lot of oversight. There are a lot of eyes on every dolor spent by the government and many internal and external watchdogs. That said, the high level goals are clearly up for debate. People who feel the EPA or Social Security Administration needs to be dismantled don't really care about how efficient it is internally. Also many things are internally imposed such as the SS being is prevented by law from investing in anything except government bonds which is arguably a huge issue, but that's outside of pure graft that is pervasive in much of the world. PS: Anyway, my point was as bad as people think the US government is there are many far worse examples.

michaelt 11y ago

I guess the disagreements will come down to whether or not you trust the society to do the right thing. But if you don't trust the society, why would you want to be charitable at all? My country's society != my country's government != humanity as a whole. I believe that giving £5000 worth of anti-malaria nets to people in countries like Malawi and DRC [1] saves more lives than paying £5000 in tax, of which only about £50 would end up in the foreign aid budget [2]. That's not because I think people are evil or society is bad - it's because politicians are part of a system that imposes certain incentives, and they can only do so much. Politicians simply think voters would vote them out of office if they increased foreign aid at the expense of making substantial cuts to health, welfare, education, policing, roads, and so on. If I've identified what I believe is the most efficient way of doing good, why introduce middlemen when at best they would do the same thing, and at worst they might be ninety-nine percent less efficient? Ultimately, I think charity is just a device for people to believe they are better than they really are. If a person legitimately wanted to become better than they are, how should they go about it if not through generosity of spirit and action? [1] https://www.againstmalaria.com/ https://www.againstmalaria.com/ [2] http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/mar/20/uk-aid-spend-important-works http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/mar/20/uk...