@Kyle Schuant
I absolutely agree that some people have privileges and charities are a noble way to give. However, you lose me at "you should give". Mandating such gifts, IMO, completely defeats the purpose. Going down that path leads to "how much am I obligated to give to be a good person?", etc. Maybe I just don't understand because I'm a dumb American. I could send you my bank account info if you'd like to help someone who doesn't understand nuance and subtlety. You really should help me.
I draw a distinction between "
you should give" and "
you should give to me (or my charity of choice)". Generally when people say the former, they mean the latter and are trying to apply social pressure. I usually punish such solicitations with the Eyebrow Of Death.
My personal opinion, and there are indeed people who disagree with me, is that the possibility of losing donor or volunteer support is the only reliable incentive that ensures money is used responsibly. If you're not allowed to say "no", your "yes" is meaningless. When your "yes" is meaningless the person asking for it is fully aware of the fact he or she is entitled to the results, and is indulging in an obvious social fiction.
To my way of thinking, the consent of the donor and the ability of each donor to withhold the donation are vital. This means that each person needs to be in control of when, how much, and even "if" he or she gives. Some will give late, or sparingly, or not at all. If they aren't free to do this without penalty, then what we would have is not a donation but a tax.
I'm not against taxation per se, and am not trying to lead the discussion in that direction, however it produces different results from voluntary donations that can be withheld at the discretion of the donor. Why? Because tax dollars are routinely used for things that don't directly benefit the individual taxpayer but that improve the quality of life for people overall. Nobody can say, for example, "I want my taxes to be used exclusively for education" and expect that request to be honored. This means that there will always be some expenditures that a given taxpayer regards as a waste. There will always be some individuals who benefit more than they contribute.
Charitable giving is different from taxation. With a charitable donation, be it to an individual or to an organization, the donor has a specific intent and goal as to the general purpose of the contribution. If I were to donate to an animal shelter, I would expect a significant part of my donation to result in animals being fed and cared for, with some reserved for administration and advertising. Should the money be spent on something unrelated, such as political lobbying for issues unrelated to animal welfare or for as an extended "seminar" (aka tropical vacation) for the Executive Director, I would be within my rights to throw a snit fit and withhold future donations even if the expenditures fell within the letter of what the law allows. I could do that even if my personal interests suddenly diverged from the charity's and I decided to fund youth sports instead.
When large numbers of donors make individual decisions about where, when, and how to donate, the aggregate result disproportionately rewards people and charities who are effective in (a) using a gift to make a long-term improvement, and/or (b) exciting an emotional reaction in the donor.
If donors are not free to identify differences between a good cause and a bad cause (or, in the case of individuals, a worthy or unworthy recipient), and if donors are not free to withhold support from what they perceive to be bad causes or unworthy recipients, then there's absolutely no incentive for prospective recipients (charities or otherwise) to manage themselves well, to make effective use of what they are given, or to go out of their way to create or maintain an emotional connection to the giver.
Exactly how much an individual is disposed to give, and the form the giving should take, depends a lot on the culture in which he or she was raised. Social and economic class are factors. Religion is a factor, and so are age and family status. In all my years of charitable activity I have yet to find a one-size-fits-all categorical imperative that works quite as well as encouraging everyone to do his or her own thing.
Topic: Overheard on Facebook (Read 6510216 times)
