3 ms·
Discard the last sentence. You're talking in absolute terms and that's leading nowhere. It's been some time, but this is what came to my mind immediately: https
by WHA8m 5y ago
Discard the last sentence. You're talking in absolute terms and that's leading nowhere. It's been some time, but this is what came to my mind immediately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei
That you can not rely on the rich to put their money in good use with the general public in mind is right. Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen often? Definitely not.
- astrange 5y agoThe anti-charity people get around their absolutism by inventing "mutual aid", which is what they call charity when they like it. (similar thing in education involved deciding "equality" was bad, so they invented "equity", which is the same thing except they like it.)
- demygale 5y agoMutual aid is decentralized charity, the aid comes from the community instead of a NGO.
- astrange 5y agoI don't think normal people define "charity" only to mean "charity that doesn't work" though. Giving to a local food bank is charity to most people. And, like, GiveWell/GiveDirectly are NGOs that are actually effective.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- thrwn_frthr_awy 5y agoRight! And that’s really my point–there are so many people in tech with money and an ego that I’m surprised this isn’t done more. Pineapple person in the most recent memorable example.
- WHA8m 5y agoYes, I think we're on the same page here. Your main point was, that you can not rely on the rich to use their money to benefit others and I totally agree.