16 ms·

> Surely it's better to have a subsidised minimum service than to rely on charities? No. Charities have to maintain efficiency because they are not subsidized,

> Surely it's better to have a subsidised minimum service than to rely on charities? No. Charities have to maintain efficiency because they are not subsidized, if they want to continue to operate they need to prove to contributors that their contribution is going to the cause to the extent that a market critical mass of contributors cares to know. > if your objection is purely because you don't want to be told that you should look after your fellow Americans, then that's either a really sad representation of how little respect Americans have for their kin, or the facet of a childish mentality where kids deliberately disobey their parents because they like to test their boundaries. Either way, it's just a terrible attitude to have. Effigies should only be burned in street protests when there are teeming masses to rile up. They are less effective in print.

laumars 13y ago
> No. Charities have to maintain efficiency because they are not subsidized, if they want to continue to operate they need to prove to contributors that their contribution is going to the cause to the extent that a market critical mass of contributors cares to know. Having worked for a number of charities, I can promise you that not all charities are efficient. In fact some are even worse for wasting money than government bodies. What's more, most people pay even less attention to just how efficiently their money is put to use in charities because: 1) it's considered bad etiquette to question charitable organisations, 2) it's assumed that charities are full of volunteers working for free on a shoe string budget out of the goodness of their hearts. The reality is, many charities are run as businesses - with high paid salaries and paid expenses just like any other business. Obviously I don't want to tar all charities with the same brush, however my experiences certainly call BS to your generalisations. > Effigies should only be burned in street protests when there are teeming masses to rile up. They are less effective in print. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I'm assuming you're objecting to my comment, but given the brevity of your previous post and the context of my comment that preceded it; it's hardly surprising that I took your reply to mean what I suggested it may have meant. However with you now expanding on your point, I now realise that your lack of comradeship is based on blissful ignorance rather than pure selfishness (though I suspect there's an element of selfishness driving the lack of motivation to investigate this topic otherwise you'd be advocating people giving up their free time caring for the less fortunate rather than complaining about who gets your money)

laumars 13y ago

> No. Charities have to maintain efficiency because they are not subsidized, if they want to continue to operate they need to prove to contributors that their contribution is going to the cause to the extent that a market critical mass of contributors cares to know. Having worked for a number of charities, I can promise you that not all charities are efficient. In fact some are even worse for wasting money than government bodies. What's more, most people pay even less attention to just how efficiently their money is put to use in charities because: 1) it's considered bad etiquette to question charitable organisations, 2) it's assumed that charities are full of volunteers working for free on a shoe string budget out of the goodness of their hearts. The reality is, many charities are run as businesses - with high paid salaries and paid expenses just like any other business. Obviously I don't want to tar all charities with the same brush, however my experiences certainly call BS to your generalisations. > Effigies should only be burned in street protests when there are teeming masses to rile up. They are less effective in print. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I'm assuming you're objecting to my comment, but given the brevity of your previous post and the context of my comment that preceded it; it's hardly surprising that I took your reply to mean what I suggested it may have meant. However with you now expanding on your point, I now realise that your lack of comradeship is based on blissful ignorance rather than pure selfishness (though I suspect there's an element of selfishness driving the lack of motivation to investigate this topic otherwise you'd be advocating people giving up their free time caring for the less fortunate rather than complaining about who gets your money)