6 ms·

Philanthropy strikes me as anti-democratic. Why should the rich get to choose which causes are more deserving of their generosity? Let the elected government po

Philanthropy strikes me as anti-democratic. Why should the rich get to choose which causes are more deserving of their generosity? Let the elected government pool the money and make this determination.

icebraining 12y ago
The government can choose who is more deserving of their money; it can't choose who is more deserving of their generosity.
- jkscm 12y ago
  Do you live in a democratic country?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I don't know, define "democracy". I live in a Western European country, but I don't see how is that relevant.
noarchy 12y ago
>Philanthropy strikes me as anti-democratic. Why should the rich get to choose which causes are more deserving of their generosity? Let the elected government pool the money and make this determination. The reason the rich get to choose is because it is their money. Just as you can decide, today, to donate your money to the charity of your choosing. And really, this isn't any different from asking why the rich (or you or me) get to decide which car or house to buy. If government is failing to give your money to areas where you think it should go, perhaps this is what is anti-democratic.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >The reason the rich get to choose is because it is their money. This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this.
  - noarchy 12y ago
    >This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this. Case by case, you may or may not have a point. Is the alternative to have the state take the money and spend as it wishes? In such a case, is the money "justly earned" if it was taken by force?
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      It's a mistake to think that states 'spend' your taxes. They don't really. It helps to think of states as machines that print money which they spend at one end and run an incinerator into which they put all of your taxes at the other. The clear implication of this is that: * Spending is inflationary * Taxes are there to clamp down on inflation. * Taxes are there to change behavior in a socially conscious way (e.g. tax cigarettes to reduce smoking // tax breaks for wind farms). Your cash is debt. It is not something you own like a house. It is a social relationship subject to intermediation by the government under democratic oversight.
    - lmm 12y ago
      Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.
      - noarchy 12y ago
        >The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people. That isn't necessarily a universally-accepted idea. Democratic systems have the machinery of accountability, but some of us are not completely convinced that it works; surely not as-advertised. I know that some will regard the wealth of the rich as having been acquired by some means of trickery or even coercion. And that may even be true in some cases. But it is true of taxation nearly 100% of the time, as states must use the threat of force to acquire that money.
        12y ago
paulhauggis 12y ago
I think we should start something called "time philanthropy". Here is how it works: Since many people have more time than money, they should be required to donate a certain amount of time towards volunteering at working on public projects for the government. This could include: construction, cleaning up trash on the highway, fix roads, etc. An elected government would get to figure out where the volunteers get to allocate their time. I think this would be a great benefit to our society.
- ivank 12y ago
  That would forego any kind of comparative advantage each person has. "Just as there is only one best charity, there is only one best way to donate to that charity. Whether you volunteer versus donate money versus raise awareness is your own choice, but that choice has consequences. If a high-powered lawyer who makes $1,000 an hour chooses to take an hour off to help clean up litter on the beach, he's wasted the opportunity to work overtime that day, make $1,000, donate to a charity that will hire a hundred poor people for $10/hour to clean up litter, and end up with a hundred times more litter removed." http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gj/efficient_charity_do_unto_others/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gj/efficient_charity_do_unto_others...
netfire 12y ago
Really? You think we should restrict how people can give their money away? If you are going to go that far, why not restrict how people can spend their money also (because why should rich people, or people in general, be able to decide what kind of businesses are more deserving of their money). In fact, why have money at all, lets just let the government take care of everyone and not let anyone own businesses or property or anything. Oh wait, because this is a horrible idea and removes a main motivation for people to actually work and contribute to society. What you are suggesting is communism, not democracy. Democracy doesn't mean that people can't choose to do what they want to do with their money. It just means that the government representing the people has been elected by the people (at least in a representative democracy, like the United States). It doesn't mean that the government should make all the decisions for everyone or control how they spend their money.

icebraining 12y ago

The government can choose who is more deserving of their money; it can't choose who is more deserving of their generosity.

jkscm 12y ago
Do you live in a democratic country?
- icebraining 12y ago
  I don't know, define "democracy". I live in a Western European country, but I don't see how is that relevant.

noarchy 12y ago

>Philanthropy strikes me as anti-democratic. Why should the rich get to choose which causes are more deserving of their generosity? Let the elected government pool the money and make this determination. The reason the rich get to choose is because it is their money. Just as you can decide, today, to donate your money to the charity of your choosing. And really, this isn't any different from asking why the rich (or you or me) get to decide which car or house to buy. If government is failing to give your money to areas where you think it should go, perhaps this is what is anti-democratic.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>The reason the rich get to choose is because it is their money. This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this.
- noarchy 12y ago
  >This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this. Case by case, you may or may not have a point. Is the alternative to have the state take the money and spend as it wishes? In such a case, is the money "justly earned" if it was taken by force?
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    It's a mistake to think that states 'spend' your taxes. They don't really. It helps to think of states as machines that print money which they spend at one end and run an incinerator into which they put all of your taxes at the other. The clear implication of this is that: * Spending is inflationary * Taxes are there to clamp down on inflation. * Taxes are there to change behavior in a socially conscious way (e.g. tax cigarettes to reduce smoking // tax breaks for wind farms). Your cash is debt. It is not something you own like a house. It is a social relationship subject to intermediation by the government under democratic oversight.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.
    - noarchy 12y ago
      >The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people. That isn't necessarily a universally-accepted idea. Democratic systems have the machinery of accountability, but some of us are not completely convinced that it works; surely not as-advertised. I know that some will regard the wealth of the rich as having been acquired by some means of trickery or even coercion. And that may even be true in some cases. But it is true of taxation nearly 100% of the time, as states must use the threat of force to acquire that money.
      - 12y ago

paulhauggis 12y ago

I think we should start something called "time philanthropy". Here is how it works: Since many people have more time than money, they should be required to donate a certain amount of time towards volunteering at working on public projects for the government. This could include: construction, cleaning up trash on the highway, fix roads, etc. An elected government would get to figure out where the volunteers get to allocate their time. I think this would be a great benefit to our society.

ivank 12y ago
That would forego any kind of comparative advantage each person has. "Just as there is only one best charity, there is only one best way to donate to that charity. Whether you volunteer versus donate money versus raise awareness is your own choice, but that choice has consequences. If a high-powered lawyer who makes $1,000 an hour chooses to take an hour off to help clean up litter on the beach, he's wasted the opportunity to work overtime that day, make $1,000, donate to a charity that will hire a hundred poor people for $10/hour to clean up litter, and end up with a hundred times more litter removed." http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gj/efficient_charity_do_unto_others/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gj/efficient_charity_do_unto_others...

netfire 12y ago

Really? You think we should restrict how people can give their money away? If you are going to go that far, why not restrict how people can spend their money also (because why should rich people, or people in general, be able to decide what kind of businesses are more deserving of their money). In fact, why have money at all, lets just let the government take care of everyone and not let anyone own businesses or property or anything. Oh wait, because this is a horrible idea and removes a main motivation for people to actually work and contribute to society. What you are suggesting is communism, not democracy. Democracy doesn't mean that people can't choose to do what they want to do with their money. It just means that the government representing the people has been elected by the people (at least in a representative democracy, like the United States). It doesn't mean that the government should make all the decisions for everyone or control how they spend their money.