tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post110778177829789272..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: CharityRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1107929695406096142005-02-09T01:14:00.000-05:002005-02-09T01:14:00.000-05:00still Nigel - you may watch your charities closely...still Nigel - you may watch your charities closely enough to keep them under presure to operate properly (and good on you for doing that) but most people don't. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?geniusnz.blogspot.com" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">Geniusnz</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1107913805435414962005-02-08T20:50:00.000-05:002005-02-08T20:50:00.000-05:00I would hope those are the sorts of problems which...I would hope those are the sorts of problems which could be overcome. Perhaps they could hire competing 'charity brokers' whose job is to find the most efficient way to spent the government's aid money. Whoever finds the best genuine deal gets a cash bonus, or something. Could that work? <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1107911373520617482005-02-08T20:09:00.000-05:002005-02-08T20:09:00.000-05:00Forcibly taking money from one person and giving i...Forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to someone else cannot possibly be described as any kind of charity, so your two options are actual charity (which is necessarily private) and government spending.<br /> <br />The feeling you get from voluntarily choosing to help someone should not be underrated, but I have no real problem with people being forced to contribute to private charities in proportion to their income. The big problems start when the government controls how the money is spent. <br /><br />The big problem with government spending of any kind, although it's particularly acute in this case, is that there's little incentive to spend the money wisely.<br /><br />If I donate to a private charity and it turns out the money wasn't spent properly then I'll donate to a different charity next time. Charities are essentially competing for your dollar by trying to prove they can turn that dollar into the greatest quantity of help to people in need. Not so with governments.<br /><br />Also, many countries in need of aid have hopelessly corrupt governments and there is potential for aid money to be diverted to greedy politicians and their friends and relatives such as happened with the U.N. Oil for Food Programme. Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein and their cronies got rich while innocent Iraqis starved.<br /><br />Don't forget that Helen wants to stay on the good side of those corrupt governments so they will support her into a high-ranking U.N. post when our voters finally come to their senses.<br /><br />The incentives associated with government aid are all wrong. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fkearney.blogspot.com" TITLE="nigel_k at yahoo dot com">Nigel Kearney</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1107802615840624072005-02-07T13:56:00.000-05:002005-02-07T13:56:00.000-05:00I think hte main psychological effect is on the pe...I think hte main psychological effect is on the person DOING the activity - it is rather like a club itual - the fact that there is somthing to do makes you more comitted yourself alows you to think of the starving etc - that means that you will campaign harder for that organization. <br />40 hr famine gets you thousands of little money collectors, who dont ask to take a cut of the donations and will probably donate more themselves in the future.<br />therefore a win for the cause. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?geniusnz.blogspot.com" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">Geniusnz</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com