4 ms·

There isn’t a charity in existence that could’ve provided even close to the amount of support needed to support major parts of the world (2.7bln in quarantine)

by xnyan 7y ago

There isn’t a charity in existence that could’ve provided even close to the amount of support needed to support major parts of the world (2.7bln in quarantine) population to date, to say nothing of what they will need in the future. Governments are the only proven way of handling truly large scale issues like defense and national health. Americans in particular depend on charities for services because domestic spending has been recklessly and cruelly slashed for at least the last 40 years. Depending on unaccountable and nebulous organizations and random billionaires for critical services is the opposite of personal freedom.

yboris 7y ago
Are you recommending people stop giving money to charity?
- a1369209993 7y ago
  If they're not, I will. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 but tldr: if altruistic people donate to (welfare-oriented) charity rather than lobbying for tax-supported welfare, they effectively subside non-altruistic people by exempting them from paying their share of welfare support.
  - yboris 7y ago
    What about a charity like Give Directly? It provides one-time large cash non-restricted grants to individuals in some of the world's poorest communities. It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Giving a small 'leg up' can help communities get better faster.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      > It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Yes, obviously. I'm claiming that the people donating to (among others) Give Directly would be more effective at achieving their stated goals via political corruption than personal charity. To be clear, I'm violently opposed to the sort of blind act-utilitarianesque consequentialism that would claim it's morally wrong to do anything other than the most utility-maximizing action (and people who donate to Give Directly et al probably are helping, just less effectively than they could be), but as far as recommendations go, see above.
      - yboris 7y ago
        I see that you're in favor of people working to end political corruption. You're claiming that it would be more effective at making the world a better place. But it also seems like you're claiming that people should not donate to charities, because that is actively bad. But then, what about donating to charities that work on ending the political corruption? Given that it's very hard for an individual to change their career mid-life to focus on fixing corruption; or to even use their free time to do that; what is the problem with sharing a message that encourages people to do research (focusing on cost-effectiveness of charities) before giving money to charity?
        a1369209993 7y ago
        > But it also seems like you're claiming that people should not donate to charities, because that is actively bad. I am specifically not claiming that; I'm claiming that, in the case of public goods and services[0], donating money to fund those them directly is less effective (that is, strategicly wrong, a mistake presumably made in good faith) than spending that money to push government-funded public goods through the corrupt faux-democratic process. > see that you're in favor of people working to end political corruption > what about donating to charities that work on ending the political corruption? I don't think I've made any claims about whether people should work and/or donate to end political corruption. > Given that it's very hard for an individual to change their career mid-life Yes, obviously if they make enough money to pay for >1.00 person-years per year of whatever they're trying to accomplish, it's more effective to spend money rather than labor, and that 1.00 drops quickly if a full-time specialist would be more productive. I'm not making a distiction between donating money versus donating labor. 0: including no-strings-attached grants like Give Directly appears to do; I think basic income would be a better way to structure that, but that's not what I'm objecting to. EDIT: actually, way back at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22960983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22960983 > Are you recommending people stop giving money to charity? I'm recommending people not support (with money or otherwise) charities that provide public goods and services, because those (being public) should be paid for by the entire tax base, especially corporations, in favor of supporting efforts (whether recognized as charities or not) to force the government to do its job of providing public goods and services to its subjects. Eg, if the government were to stop maintaining the roads, I would not recommend that people donate to a road repair charity; I would recommend that they put whatever pressure necessary on the government to do its damn job.

by xnyan 7y ago

yboris 7y ago

Are you recommending people stop giving money to charity?

a1369209993 7y ago
If they're not, I will. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 but tldr: if altruistic people donate to (welfare-oriented) charity rather than lobbying for tax-supported welfare, they effectively subside non-altruistic people by exempting them from paying their share of welfare support.
- yboris 7y ago
  What about a charity like Give Directly? It provides one-time large cash non-restricted grants to individuals in some of the world's poorest communities. It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Giving a small 'leg up' can help communities get better faster.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    > It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Yes, obviously. I'm claiming that the people donating to (among others) Give Directly would be more effective at achieving their stated goals via political corruption than personal charity. To be clear, I'm violently opposed to the sort of blind act-utilitarianesque consequentialism that would claim it's morally wrong to do anything other than the most utility-maximizing action (and people who donate to Give Directly et al probably are helping, just less effectively than they could be), but as far as recommendations go, see above.
    - yboris 7y ago
      I see that you're in favor of people working to end political corruption. You're claiming that it would be more effective at making the world a better place. But it also seems like you're claiming that people should not donate to charities, because that is actively bad. But then, what about donating to charities that work on ending the political corruption? Given that it's very hard for an individual to change their career mid-life to focus on fixing corruption; or to even use their free time to do that; what is the problem with sharing a message that encourages people to do research (focusing on cost-effectiveness of charities) before giving money to charity?
      - a1369209993 7y ago
        > But it also seems like you're claiming that people should not donate to charities, because that is actively bad. I am specifically not claiming that; I'm claiming that, in the case of public goods and services[0], donating money to fund those them directly is less effective (that is, strategicly wrong, a mistake presumably made in good faith) than spending that money to push government-funded public goods through the corrupt faux-democratic process. > see that you're in favor of people working to end political corruption > what about donating to charities that work on ending the political corruption? I don't think I've made any claims about whether people should work and/or donate to end political corruption. > Given that it's very hard for an individual to change their career mid-life Yes, obviously if they make enough money to pay for >1.00 person-years per year of whatever they're trying to accomplish, it's more effective to spend money rather than labor, and that 1.00 drops quickly if a full-time specialist would be more productive. I'm not making a distiction between donating money versus donating labor. 0: including no-strings-attached grants like Give Directly appears to do; I think basic income would be a better way to structure that, but that's not what I'm objecting to. EDIT: actually, way back at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22960983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22960983 > Are you recommending people stop giving money to charity? I'm recommending people not support (with money or otherwise) charities that provide public goods and services, because those (being public) should be paid for by the entire tax base, especially corporations, in favor of supporting efforts (whether recognized as charities or not) to force the government to do its job of providing public goods and services to its subjects. Eg, if the government were to stop maintaining the roads, I would not recommend that people donate to a road repair charity; I would recommend that they put whatever pressure necessary on the government to do its damn job.