3 ms·

You would determine that specific charity is not trustworthy and move your giving to a charity that transparently releases their spending. There are many chari

You would determine that specific charity is not trustworthy and move your giving to a charity that transparently releases their spending. There are many charities that exist solely to shelter tax money and give kickbacks to the administration. My recommendation would be to avoid those. You could also determine to give to your local church if you have evidence they're trustworthy. You could also start your own and have direct control over how the money is gifted. Although the government does provide reports as to how money is spent, the individual has very little influence over how that money is actually spent other than via voting or running for office. Being not forced to be a victim of theft allows power to be retained by the individual and exercised with each dollar spent.

shakna 5y ago
I specifically named a charity that is widely considered to be among the most transparent, with the most real-world effect. It would appear, by your metric, that no such organisations actually exist. Hence the invitation to expand on the onus you require of individuals to prevent unnecessary deaths. The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. Referring to the underpinning mechanism for providing such utility as theft, is strongly indicative of either a lack of working theory, or a desire for anarchism.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  > The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individuals is akin to wealth redistribution. It is not money going to a public good/service but rather to individuals via an involuntary transaction. While it may benefit the party receiving the redistributed wealth, it does not necessarily benefit the giving party (though it may). Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. While the Salvation Army may be considered a great charity by many, it seems to fall short on transparency so you are correct in that I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. Edit: it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages.
  - shakna 5y ago
    > it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages. Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. > Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. > I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. For the third and final time - Where?
    - hellojesus 5y ago
      > Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. You are proposing fixing a negative externality caused by government policy with more government policy, which also happens to actively harm citizens. Minimum wage laws add barriers to entry into the labor market for citizens. It ensures that laborers whom cannot provide utility at or in excess of the minimum wage cannot get a job in the first place. It also actively prohibits private citizens from making voluntary, private transactions that pose no harm to third parties. > Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. My point was that there was harm induced, definitively, upon Peter when you rob him to pay Paul. The only "maybe" about it was in the event that Peter wanted to give Paul the money anyway. But we know that is a specific case and not general. > For the third and final time - Where? I don't have a good charity to recommend. I do most of my giving through the local church and it's partner organizations. They release spending profiles, and I can see the difference my dollars make in the local ccommunity. It appears you are correct about SA, which I didn't know https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-charities/ https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-chari...

shakna 5y ago

I specifically named a charity that is widely considered to be among the most transparent, with the most real-world effect. It would appear, by your metric, that no such organisations actually exist. Hence the invitation to expand on the onus you require of individuals to prevent unnecessary deaths. The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. Referring to the underpinning mechanism for providing such utility as theft, is strongly indicative of either a lack of working theory, or a desire for anarchism.

hellojesus 5y ago
> The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individuals is akin to wealth redistribution. It is not money going to a public good/service but rather to individuals via an involuntary transaction. While it may benefit the party receiving the redistributed wealth, it does not necessarily benefit the giving party (though it may). Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. While the Salvation Army may be considered a great charity by many, it seems to fall short on transparency so you are correct in that I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. Edit: it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages.
- shakna 5y ago
  > it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages. Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. > Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. > I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. For the third and final time - Where?
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    > Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. You are proposing fixing a negative externality caused by government policy with more government policy, which also happens to actively harm citizens. Minimum wage laws add barriers to entry into the labor market for citizens. It ensures that laborers whom cannot provide utility at or in excess of the minimum wage cannot get a job in the first place. It also actively prohibits private citizens from making voluntary, private transactions that pose no harm to third parties. > Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. My point was that there was harm induced, definitively, upon Peter when you rob him to pay Paul. The only "maybe" about it was in the event that Peter wanted to give Paul the money anyway. But we know that is a specific case and not general. > For the third and final time - Where? I don't have a good charity to recommend. I do most of my giving through the local church and it's partner organizations. They release spending profiles, and I can see the difference my dollars make in the local ccommunity. It appears you are correct about SA, which I didn't know https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-charities/ https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-chari...