nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/01/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 4:34 pm Jan 29, 1985 >> It is true that pension funds go belly-up, and it is true that >> their insurers go belly-up, but it is also true that this is pretty >> rare, that such people are the legitimate objects of (private) charity, > >National Public Radio had an interesting report from a study of >private charity. The main subject of the report was the increased >giving by religious groups to innovative projects to help the poor. >But along the way they mentioned an interesting statistic: namely >that the total amount of private charity by religious groups, >corporations and foundations totals approximately $7.1 billion. When I said "pretty rare", I *MEANT* "pretty rare". $7.1 billion strikes me as quite a bit of money to distribute among a few thousand people, and if it didn't seem enough (i.e. we began to see Americans starving because they were ineligible for aid) there's reason to think that people would give more. It seems to me your $7.1 billion statistic implies little given that it represents how much people are willing to give, *KNOWING* that government is giving a lot too, and *KNOWING* they are paying for this giving in a tremendously inefficient way. >If the poor, aged and others less well off were forced to rely on >this amount they would quickly starve. >---------- Well, if pigs had wings they could fly! Think about it -- the $7.1 billion raised is raised given a certain public understanding of what the poverty level is, and how much the needs of others should impinge on one's own prosperity. To maintain that the amount would NOT change (or would go down) is to imply that giving has no relationship (or a negative relationship) to need. Care to advance that hypothesis? If so, I'd like to see what backing you have for it, and indeed what point there is in publicizing charities, or charitable opportunities such as the Ethiopian famine. It does not seem to me so harsh to say that those who advocate charity must cease using governments (and thus force) to impose very inefficient means of charity on people. It is quite likely that the total amount of money raised would go down, but it is almost certain that the money spent would be spent much more efficiently (certainly this is the case now).