5 ms·

> These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. That’s close to the truth, but it ignores the efficacy of

> These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. That’s close to the truth, but it ignores the efficacy of charities and churches — where many people can (and do) give generously to help others. When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. I challenge anyone who cares about the poor and wants to make a big difference to give to, volunteer at, or even start one of these nonprofit community programs. In my city there’s a charity that provides clothes to poor people at massive discounts. They don’t feel like they’re getting a handout, since they’re still paying (less than $1 per item) - hence they don’t lose any sense of dignity or “providing for their family”. It also reduces free-loading since you do have to pay. And store employees take time to help people with all sorts of things - job applications, government forms. If I’m bit mistaken, they also offer counseling, showers, and a cold weather shelter.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Churches have been notorious for either stipulating that recipients act in a certain church-approved way to get aid, or giving charity in the hope that recipients will convert. Either way, it hardly strikes most people outside that religion as "generous". It is worth pointing to the Nordic countries, where private charitable endeavours have largely faded away with the rise of the welfare state, and even the local churches are happy to let the state take care of the feeding, clothing and housing business because the state enjoys economy of scale far beyond any church’s ability. In spite of the dwindling of private charity, those countries have less wealth disparity than countries fond of charitable activity. Consequently, some feel that charity is a just an awkward substitute for a functional state, not a good thing in itself.
- rhizome 8y ago
  I can't find it now, but in the last few years there was a "well but what about churches?" story as public services for street problems were being cut, and they themselves said that they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    > ...they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut. Churches literally aren't able to address "street problems" like violence and mental health problems. Governments are the best place to deal with problems where push actually has come to shove. There might be some creative way to make sure charity-oriented churches are better supported by social service organizations, police departments, etc., but if that sort of setup exists now, it isn't routine or well publicized.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up? The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the most suspect - when those at the top have less accountability and more temptation to not put all that money where it ought to go. The American Red Cross comes to mind. The only exception is large charities with a “100% of donations go to help people” policy (i.e. employees and leaders have to raise their own support to work there).
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Your original comment said: > When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local charities and churches, nor do faith based organizations have anywhere near the resources available to them government does.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Mediterraneo10 8y ago

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Churches have been notorious for either stipulating that recipients act in a certain church-approved way to get aid, or giving charity in the hope that recipients will convert. Either way, it hardly strikes most people outside that religion as "generous". It is worth pointing to the Nordic countries, where private charitable endeavours have largely faded away with the rise of the welfare state, and even the local churches are happy to let the state take care of the feeding, clothing and housing business because the state enjoys economy of scale far beyond any church’s ability. In spite of the dwindling of private charity, those countries have less wealth disparity than countries fond of charitable activity. Consequently, some feel that charity is a just an awkward substitute for a functional state, not a good thing in itself.

rhizome 8y ago
I can't find it now, but in the last few years there was a "well but what about churches?" story as public services for street problems were being cut, and they themselves said that they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  > ...they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut. Churches literally aren't able to address "street problems" like violence and mental health problems. Governments are the best place to deal with problems where push actually has come to shove. There might be some creative way to make sure charity-oriented churches are better supported by social service organizations, police departments, etc., but if that sort of setup exists now, it isn't routine or well publicized.
TimTheTinker 8y ago
> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up? The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the most suspect - when those at the top have less accountability and more temptation to not put all that money where it ought to go. The American Red Cross comes to mind. The only exception is large charities with a “100% of donations go to help people” policy (i.e. employees and leaders have to raise their own support to work there).
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Your original comment said: > When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local charities and churches, nor do faith based organizations have anywhere near the resources available to them government does.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]