4 ms·
It's great he donated his wealth to charity, but it's a little unfair that he took it upon himself to chose where the money went instead of letting the people c
by cosmotic 6y ago
It's great he donated his wealth to charity, but it's a little unfair that he took it upon himself to chose where the money went instead of letting the people choose.
- hr2016 6y agoI don't feel so, care to explain why?
- bena 6y agoWhy should the people get to choose?
- Mediterraneo10 6y agoOne of the reasons that private charity is somewhat looked down upon in certain countries with a robust welfare state is that historically, private charities were selective in whom they helped. If the private charity felt that your "lifestyle" (i.e. you were a mother out of wedlock, you were LGBT) or ethnicity was objectionable, you were just left to suffer. Or those private charities would assist you, but you were obliged to convert to their religious denomination or sit through a long sermon before getting to eat. Welfare states run from taxpayer money and overseen by democratically elected officials, while they have their downsides that are often commented on, at least tend to assist groups that would be marginalized otherwise, and there are no religious strings attached.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- guerrilla 6y agoThat and the fact that such charity systems are demonstrably less efficient than welfare. It seems that many of people just want to ignore that evidence though and continue to scaremonger.
- cosmotic 6y agoBecause thats where the money originally came from. Why should the single billionaire get to chose?