3 ms·

I believe there are no examples of charity ever being able to provide the basic needs of all but a small percent of the poor of a nation. It was not charities

I believe there are no examples of charity ever being able to provide the basic needs of all but a small percent of the poor of a nation. It was not charities that provided clean water. It was not charities that largely ended hunger or gave healthcare to the poor. It was not charities that educated the masses. Government is necessary. It can be done badly but it doesn't have to be.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
edanm 10y ago
You might be right but I'm not sure what you prevented is any kind of proof that charity couldn't provide those needs. It's just that in most cases, governments effectively have a monopoly on providing these kinds of services, making charity either redundant, or legally unable to provide said services.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  In the time before governments provided these services, or in countries where the government is too broken to provide them, charity makes a good effort but fails to provide basic complete coverage.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Universal healthcare and other welfare reforms in most of the world came as a direct response to the total failure of charitable systems. You are right: It's not proof that it can't work. However, despite extensive attempts, we also have no proof that it works, and plenty of proof that government welfare systems work far better than the charitable solutions that preceded them.
- stuaxo 10y ago
  The problem is, you need quite a bit more money than charity can give. People just aren't generous enough for it timescale, the example elsewhere in this thread of universal healthcare is a good one.
- Retric 10y ago
  It's not about can't but won't. The feedback loop is basically as the problem gets worse more people give, but as the situation improves fewer people give. Thus, cheraties won't fix any problem that requires regular funding.
- dagw 10y ago
  One big advantage that charities have and that helps them be much more efficient is that they can pick and choose who they help. If a group or problem is too hard or too expensive or not 'sexy' enough to deal with efficiently they can just ignore them. Governments can't do that.
  - freeflight 10y ago
    How is that an "advantage"? It's basically leaving those behind that would need help the most, while it might be an advantage from an "efficiency point of view", it's not really an advantage in the bigger context of how to have a healthy and able population.
    - dagw 10y ago
      That's exactly what I meant. It's a lot easier to be a charity because you can ignore all the hard problems. That's why they look so much better than governments when you look at things like efficiency metrics.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Governments can't do that. Governments do that all the time. Look at the shitty schools we in USA force poor black kids to attend. It's easy to be confused by all the demonization and expectation-lowering we get from the media, if one pays attention to that shit. The end result is the same: if we changed public education at all, we might possibly inconvenience some suburbanites, therefore it's most efficient to just screw minorities and the poor as we have for decades.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  "Could" is a weak argument. People could all get along and love each other, but they absolutely never will. In that sense, the "could" is really an illusion formed from an imperfect understanding of human nature as the function of a large group, over time.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

edanm 10y ago

You might be right but I'm not sure what you prevented is any kind of proof that charity couldn't provide those needs. It's just that in most cases, governments effectively have a monopoly on providing these kinds of services, making charity either redundant, or legally unable to provide said services.

CJefferson 10y ago
In the time before governments provided these services, or in countries where the government is too broken to provide them, charity makes a good effort but fails to provide basic complete coverage.
vidarh 10y ago
Universal healthcare and other welfare reforms in most of the world came as a direct response to the total failure of charitable systems. You are right: It's not proof that it can't work. However, despite extensive attempts, we also have no proof that it works, and plenty of proof that government welfare systems work far better than the charitable solutions that preceded them.
stuaxo 10y ago
The problem is, you need quite a bit more money than charity can give. People just aren't generous enough for it timescale, the example elsewhere in this thread of universal healthcare is a good one.
Retric 10y ago
It's not about can't but won't. The feedback loop is basically as the problem gets worse more people give, but as the situation improves fewer people give. Thus, cheraties won't fix any problem that requires regular funding.
dagw 10y ago
One big advantage that charities have and that helps them be much more efficient is that they can pick and choose who they help. If a group or problem is too hard or too expensive or not 'sexy' enough to deal with efficiently they can just ignore them. Governments can't do that.
- freeflight 10y ago
  How is that an "advantage"? It's basically leaving those behind that would need help the most, while it might be an advantage from an "efficiency point of view", it's not really an advantage in the bigger context of how to have a healthy and able population.
  - dagw 10y ago
    That's exactly what I meant. It's a lot easier to be a charity because you can ignore all the hard problems. That's why they look so much better than governments when you look at things like efficiency metrics.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Governments can't do that. Governments do that all the time. Look at the shitty schools we in USA force poor black kids to attend. It's easy to be confused by all the demonization and expectation-lowering we get from the media, if one pays attention to that shit. The end result is the same: if we changed public education at all, we might possibly inconvenience some suburbanites, therefore it's most efficient to just screw minorities and the poor as we have for decades.
M_Grey 10y ago
"Could" is a weak argument. People could all get along and love each other, but they absolutely never will. In that sense, the "could" is really an illusion formed from an imperfect understanding of human nature as the function of a large group, over time.