5 ms·

What would be more interesting would be comparing it after including welfare/public education/healthcare/poverty rates etc. Best case scenario would be where n

• blairharper 4y ago
  Welfare should rightly fund "survival" and "levelling the playing field" resources, but charity can offer more than that - it can offer quality of life and a sense of community/belonging. It's nice to be around other people who are going through the same things, and people who support you. So I think charity will always have a role, both financially and socially.
  • nicoburns 4y ago
    Publicly funded institutions such as libraries and community centres can also offer this. There’s no reason other than political ideology why welfare cannot fund these things too. Which isn’t to say there isn’t a place for charity.
    • zozbot234 4y ago
      But of course there is a reason. A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Small-scale philanthropy thus has a key role to play here. Funding for basic educational standards and a minimal social safety net is already a huge spending commitment for even the most successful governments, and it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.
      • nicoburns 4y ago
        > A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Why would you say that? By that logic a charitable institution has no one with a stake in it's long-term success. It's only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from donors. There's nothing about governments which makes them inherently incapable of hiring motivated staff. In my experience, government workers, be they school teachers, nurses, librarians, or community workers are often some of most highly motivated workers I have met. > it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that. It is clear if you believe that such funding is available from philanthropic sources. It's just a question of who we wish to give control of those resources to.
      • mschuster91 4y ago
        > A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Of course it has: pissed-off voters. Mismanaged government-funded institutions such as DMVs or social security systems are a regular troublemaker for politicians.
        • sokoloff 4y ago
          Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed?
          • Matl 4y ago
            > Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed? Perhaps the constant demonizing of public services by private interests, (who btw often rely on government contracts to function), and certain politicians bought by these interests could be a contributing factor in why not? But let me hear about how private healthcare and broadband is killing it please.
            • sokoloff 4y ago
              I think that's a lot of the issue: many people (including myself) are in fact happy with their private healthcare and broadband service. (I have Comcast, so it's not like I've even got the "best", but I'd way rather deal with Comcast or Blue Cross than any government agency...)
              • nicoburns 4y ago
                Are you imagining a monolithic federal-level agency? Most municipal broadband schemes are run like small non-profit businesses that just happen to be publicly/community owned. Let me put it this way: Comcast is the only reason why a lot of the US doesn't have gigabit internet at cheap prices.
              • default-kramer 4y ago
  • naravara 4y ago
    Charity in the form of "the community is coming together to do something of common interest" sure. Charity in the form of "one rich guy writes a check because he felt like it" is too dependent on the capricious whims and priorities of a handful of rich people.
• krzysiek 4y ago
  Honestly I believe that the other way around would be way better. There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way governments work, plus they operate like monopolies. On the other hand there is competition between nonprofits, plus they are often multinational. I find it interesting that some of the most efficient government organizations (like World Food Programme) actually operate as charities (in the sense that everyone can donate to them).
  • suture 4y ago
    I think you are very much wrong when talking about efficiencies. There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.
    • maccard 4y ago
      I'm definitely in the pro-government-involvement camp but > There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. This is just false. Literally right now we have the case where food banks are filling in the gaps of the UK government at a national scale.
      • suture 4y ago
        Remove UK government support for food for the poor. This includes school lunches and whatnot. Will the charities be able to fill the need? The answer is no. Charities can fill gaps but not beyond that.
        • QuarterReptile 4y ago
          This is true in the same way that US rail wouldn't be able to fill commuter demand if every ICE car disappeared. It should surprise no one that an organization accustomed to, and thus built for, one thing would fail to instantaneoulsy shift to doing a somewhat similar thing on a completely different scale.