4 ms·

I overwhelmingly disagree. The number two limiting factor on philanthropy is that, despite good intentions, people just don't actually get around to it. Givin

by Eliezer 15y ago

I overwhelmingly disagree. The number two limiting factor on philanthropy is that, despite good intentions, people just don't actually get around to it. Giving away 1% at startup-start is a supremely good suggestion just because it means something will actually happen. If my host nonprofit had $100 for everyone who heard of us and thought it was a good idea and plans to donate to us "someday", it would probably work out to around a million dollars. (The number one limiting factor is the lack of any efficient market in utilons. See Givewell and Giving What We Can for optimal philanthropy background.)

alexkearns 15y ago
You seem to think that the total amount of charitable donations is all important. More is better, seems to be your argument, regardless of where that money goes, where it comes from or what it is spent on. What if all that money went to a charity you disagree with, say one that promotes eugenics? My argument is: leave charitable giving to individuals - individuals can choose their own charities or not to give anything. That seems far more democratic to me. It may be that this will result in less charitable donations overall but at least the money will be going to organisations individuals support.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Startups aren't donating to charities that promote eugenics.
- TomGullen 15y ago
  Leaving charity solely to individuals would be a responsibility with dire consequences. Charities need money, and we all have a moral obligation to give that all of us including me fall far short of. Government giving to charity, business giving to charity is good and should be encouraged. If you work at a company that gives money to charity you can always find one that doesn't.
- drumdance 15y ago
  I'm not a huge fan of corporate giving, but the counter-argument is that when you have one big donor instead of a lot of little ones, and objectionable decisions by the company can be boycotted. For example, Coors used to give to a lot of right-wing organizations and also had a lot of anti-gay hiring practices. Gay organizations targetted them and eventually they not only stopped donating to those orgs, but they changed all their corporate policies.
  - maratd 15y ago
    Wow. So essentially you're saying people are too stupid to know who to donate to, so instead, let's have large corporations do it. They can be manipulated by special interests for the betterment of society! I'll pass on that.
- chc 15y ago
  This is an individual choosing to give to charity. I am an individual, and I'm choosing to give a little bit of stock in my company to charity. So what's the problem?
tptacek 15y ago
Since you're arguing against a classic libertarian position, I don't think you have much chance of changing this person's mind with logic. Fortunately, that doesn't matter: if you're in a position to allocate 1% of the equity of your company to charity, you are under every philosophy of governance free to do so; it's your company.
- Androsynth 15y ago
  You can always change a classical liberals mind with logic, that is why they are classical liberals in the first place.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    "Logic" was a poor choice of words.
  - batista 15y ago
    Actually "classical liberalism" is another ideology as all others -- and assumes too many things that out to be discovered empirically.
- gburt 15y ago
  As a classical liberal, I believe two important things: 1. the grandparent should be free to direct his business anyway he wants and that includes giving 100% of his profits to charity; 2. people should have discussions about what is good, logical policy for a business or individual to practice. This includes discussing whether businesses should push profits to their shareholders/employees or pay them out to charity. I agree with the sentiment that funds should probably be distributed to the stakeholders (share- and employees), because having more diverse money encourages a more efficient market in philanthropy.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    "shareholders/employees" vs. "charity" is a confusing way to frame the decision. The reality is more like [owners, investors, employees, charity]. Most businesses push profits to their owners and investors, and compensate employees with salaries. Money that is properly understood as "return on investment" can safely be "pushed" to charities without any moral or ethical quandaries. Money that is owed to employees can't be donated to charities at all. Fortunately: nobody is suggesting that it should be. It is not a valid criticism to complain that money that the owners of the company are entitled to anyways is instead going to charity. Let's let people do good things without looking for reasons to bitch at them.
Drbble 15y ago
There are a lot of things I would like to buy that I don't get around to, including vacations and fine foods and maid service. The two is debatable whether these purchases should be forced upon me. Your rationality here appears not to have fully overcome the bias of your economic interests.

by Eliezer 15y ago

alexkearns 15y ago

You seem to think that the total amount of charitable donations is all important. More is better, seems to be your argument, regardless of where that money goes, where it comes from or what it is spent on. What if all that money went to a charity you disagree with, say one that promotes eugenics? My argument is: leave charitable giving to individuals - individuals can choose their own charities or not to give anything. That seems far more democratic to me. It may be that this will result in less charitable donations overall but at least the money will be going to organisations individuals support.

tptacek 15y ago
Startups aren't donating to charities that promote eugenics.
TomGullen 15y ago
Leaving charity solely to individuals would be a responsibility with dire consequences. Charities need money, and we all have a moral obligation to give that all of us including me fall far short of. Government giving to charity, business giving to charity is good and should be encouraged. If you work at a company that gives money to charity you can always find one that doesn't.
drumdance 15y ago
I'm not a huge fan of corporate giving, but the counter-argument is that when you have one big donor instead of a lot of little ones, and objectionable decisions by the company can be boycotted. For example, Coors used to give to a lot of right-wing organizations and also had a lot of anti-gay hiring practices. Gay organizations targetted them and eventually they not only stopped donating to those orgs, but they changed all their corporate policies.
- maratd 15y ago
  Wow. So essentially you're saying people are too stupid to know who to donate to, so instead, let's have large corporations do it. They can be manipulated by special interests for the betterment of society! I'll pass on that.
chc 15y ago
This is an individual choosing to give to charity. I am an individual, and I'm choosing to give a little bit of stock in my company to charity. So what's the problem?

tptacek 15y ago

Since you're arguing against a classic libertarian position, I don't think you have much chance of changing this person's mind with logic. Fortunately, that doesn't matter: if you're in a position to allocate 1% of the equity of your company to charity, you are under every philosophy of governance free to do so; it's your company.

Androsynth 15y ago
You can always change a classical liberals mind with logic, that is why they are classical liberals in the first place.
- tptacek 15y ago
  "Logic" was a poor choice of words.
- batista 15y ago
  Actually "classical liberalism" is another ideology as all others -- and assumes too many things that out to be discovered empirically.
gburt 15y ago
As a classical liberal, I believe two important things: 1. the grandparent should be free to direct his business anyway he wants and that includes giving 100% of his profits to charity; 2. people should have discussions about what is good, logical policy for a business or individual to practice. This includes discussing whether businesses should push profits to their shareholders/employees or pay them out to charity. I agree with the sentiment that funds should probably be distributed to the stakeholders (share- and employees), because having more diverse money encourages a more efficient market in philanthropy.
- tptacek 15y ago
  "shareholders/employees" vs. "charity" is a confusing way to frame the decision. The reality is more like [owners, investors, employees, charity]. Most businesses push profits to their owners and investors, and compensate employees with salaries. Money that is properly understood as "return on investment" can safely be "pushed" to charities without any moral or ethical quandaries. Money that is owed to employees can't be donated to charities at all. Fortunately: nobody is suggesting that it should be. It is not a valid criticism to complain that money that the owners of the company are entitled to anyways is instead going to charity. Let's let people do good things without looking for reasons to bitch at them.

Drbble 15y ago

There are a lot of things I would like to buy that I don't get around to, including vacations and fine foods and maid service. The two is debatable whether these purchases should be forced upon me. Your rationality here appears not to have fully overcome the bias of your economic interests.