next »

[dEnamed]

So, there's this discussion in the Humble Indie Bundle Thread about Charity. And as it is really quite Off Topic, I thought i'd better make it a thread of its own. Please note that it is indeed my believe that charity is actually harmful. I'll try to give reasons as to why and how. I'm also open for different arguments, as long as they're not just "but won't anyone think of the children?".
First things first, it started here:

Gnarr, it quite rubs me the wrong way to see people argue about the so called "charity" aspect of the Bundle. Charity

is bullshit. You can help the Indie Devs, fair enough and of course you can help people, but if you'd want to do that, you'd really do that. Charity ain't helping. So called Charity is the good old letter of indulgence reborn. And in most cases that charity makes things worse.

You are aware that of the two charities involved one lobbies to protect freedom of speech and privacy online, and the other provides money and entertainment for sick children?

How does giving to charity make things worse? Unless I'm reading what you're saying wrong. Most people don't donate to charity. It's not really on most people's to-do list. Certainly not on mine,  but I donate to the local fire houses when they give me a call and I buy those cans of food at the grocery store that get donated, because they are up in my face. I think of the Humble Bundle in a similar way. It's like the tin can at the store, put a couple bucks in it or some change and buy your shit and get out. Hard to see how anyone could think that's a problem.

Like I said, in my opinion, charity is a bad thing. I'm not denying that people indeed do need the money to operate and help people. At the tip of the iceberg, things are looking pretty neat, we've got people with some spare money on the left and a bunch of organisations on the right, that do help people in need. Combine the two and you get the glorious
institution that is charity.
So why the fuzz, why say charity is bad? The issue is deeper down the iceberg. It starts with the basic issue of people in need. Why do they need that help? Let's start with some basic examples, something everyone can relate to because they've seen it at one point or another:

We've got the problem of hunger.
If you look at the UN MDGs, it's one of the top priority issues and a lot of charity goes towards providing meals and rations to people. What is hunger, apart from the biological facts of course? It's not the actual lack of food, ironically enough, there's plenty of food. But said food is too expensive for the locale to buy (interesting read about
this: Amartya Sen and his books about Hunger). And the reason it is too expensive to be bought, is because of low wages. People simply don't earn enough money or don't even have a job to buy food with. And why are those wages that low? 'cause Companies ain't paying more. It's so we can throw stuff away and live in a world where there's always at least one thing of everything and for dirt cheap too.
So what does charity do and why is it bad? Charity buys a portion of those exported good and imports them back into those countries to distribute as aid. There might be some localized exceptions but good luck finding them. Buying goods only further strengthens the companies. The state profits too, as those goods are usually tagged with an import Tax. Money that rinses down into corruption. So by wanting to help with a donation, you're feeding the very demons that are responsible for the issue. In this regard, charity makes it worse by keeping up the Status Quo.
Actual education, strengthening the infrastructure, you know, water, electricity, streets would be that much more useful but require an actual effort. There are some charities that do that, but then again it's teaching people to be dependent. You want actual alternatives? Try micro loans for example. Help people to help themselves.

We've got the problem of medical care.
It's quite similiar to hunger in how it operates. It's not that there isn't enough medicine to go around, it's that it is too expensive to be bought. What does charity do about this, well it goes and buys the medicine. We all know at least something about market, supply and demand, right? By buying it, this does give a quite strong signal that the price tag is fine and could in fact be even higher - after all it was bought. This circle has reached absurd levels, it's even a big issue in our countries now with perfectly fine middle class families not being able to pay for treatment.

And my personal pet peeve charity, governmental issues.
Like the mentioned free speech thing. Instead of rallying people, making the issue known, a fee is donated to some organisation to do it for you. To make it obvious why this is such an absurd idea, imagine the following:
Your boss is giving you a bloody hard time, squeezing you dry and having you work late hours all year. You don't like that. Now naturally, you'd confront your boss about it. Talk to him or check with other workers whether they feel the same.
Instead, you go to some random stranger, give him money and hope he does it on your behalf. This is so unbelievably absurd! You bloody can't do everything by proxy. Some things require actual participation. In all honesty, what's your boss gonna do when he sees someone else complain to him? He's gonna laugh his ass off, because the issue can't be a real issue if the person didn't get his ass up for it.


So, there you have it. Three examples why I think charity is making things worse.
1) It's keeping up the Status Quo.
2) It sends the wrong signals.
3) Creates a false sense of having helped.

That's why I said its the modern indulgement letter. The reason for this is our lifestyle and our overblown expectations. Instead however, of actually attempting to change those things, you know start something, people are offered indulgement letters in the shape of charity. Little voices telling them "You know your living standard is absurd, for the small amount of... ah you know best whats it gonna be worth, eh? Well for that small amount, you can balance it out. Promise! Pay up and everything is fine, you've helped people. You ain't bad, you're a helper!".

That's my reason for saying charity is bad. If you want images, charity is like trying to divert a river by tossing rocks into it, one at a time. Fair enough, you do divert the water for a bit. But the rocks are quickly getting washed away, not that you'd see, because you're already looking in a different direction again.
Instead of paying a penny in the tin can to calm your conscience, do some honorary work at the right places. That'd be actual help. And if you really want to change things, read up, get politically involved. Just not by proxy please.

Please note:
I often use the word you to describe something. This isn't meant to target a specific person. Also please keep it civil, please. I know charity is a topic that can get emotionally supercharged.

Also: If my tone is at times somewhat harsh; I do apologize. Kindly tell me and I'll try to tone it down.

TL:DR;
Three examples why I think charity is making things worse.
1) It's keeping up the Status Quo.
2) It sends the wrong signals.
3) Creates a false sense of having helped.

[jotapeh]

I somewhat agree with the first two, but your example and premise for your last pet peeve are absurd.

You're not paying someone to convince someone you know well. You don't even have personal access to the people you need to convince in the first place.

In order to gain attention it is highly effective to consolidate funds into a singular entity with more clout than the individual. Focused charities targeting specific governmental issues are a decent way to do this. It's also why you would donate money to a political party you felt strongly represented your personal views.

You've also overlooked that charities usually get supplied food and medicine via channels not accessible to the consumer. Either by donation or significantly discounted product - so they do not affect supply and demand quite the same way as you state. Most of the money to these charities (should, in theory,) be going to establishing brick and mortar institutions, hiring and training staff, etc..

Also, the types of food and medicine bought by charities are almost entirely not the sort of thing you need to worry about a pricetag on. Non-perishable food items, basic antibiotics, contraceptives. If you have a job of any kind in a developed country you needn't fret over charities raising your CPI too much.

Lastly it is far preferable that people give willingly, and that those who can afford to give more than those who cannot, rather than to get to a point where 'charity' is forcibly taxed out. It's sort of ironic for me to be saying this as a Canadian who believes our government should tax us even more, but the only reason I believe that is because voluntary giving is abysmally low.

[Paul Eres]

i've some sympathy with the idea that charities which teach people to fish (like kiva) are better than charities that give people fish. and i feel that certain charities, such as child's play, are a waste of resources (i'd rather give money to cure cancer than to give games to kids with cancer). and there is are a lot of problems with corruption in certain charities (such as in those adopt a child commercials; only about 18% of the money actually goes to children, the rest go to the owners of the charity). however, to say that most charity does more harm than good is complete lunacy

[allen]

gonna drop some honesty on you fools, I'm sure a lot of people feel similar to me but don't have the balls to admit it.

Charity is good because I can't be fucked to do more than give someone money to do it for me. Sure, giving the poor people food isn't as good as solving economic poverty, but what the fuck can I do about that? Not much else-because I'm a selfish prick (which is not uncommon in the United States) and can hardly find the time to give a fuck. I would rather argue on the internet about the pros and cons of giving to charity. So it's either buy a few cans of gravy and green beans at the grocery store or do nothing at all. In this case, would you rather me not buy the cans of food?

Similar to the Humble Bundle donation thing. To be quite honest, I could care less if some cancer kid is entertained in the last moments of his life. But I have an option to donate 2 bucks and I also get a few games of it. Cool deal, I'll do that. I don't see how that is hurting anyone.

And if it gives me a false sense of having helped, so what? That's my problem. Me feeling as if I had helped isn't hurting anyone. And hell it's the only way to get me to do stuff these days: inflate my ego, give me something in return, or guilt me.

Charity.

tldr;
I'm lazy, donating to charity is easy. I hope it helps but in the end I really don't give a fuck.

god bless america.

[C.A. Sinner]

I think one of the main problems is that most of these third world countries have governments that are extremely corrupt to say the least. As long as that doesn't change, the general situation in those countries won't change either, no matter the amount of humanitarian aid. If the system itself is broken, you can't expect a knight in shiny armor to come save the day.

[Dragonmaw]

EFF isn't charity. It's a political organization.

That's like saying ThinkProgress or Heritage Foundation are charities. They aren't. Red Cross and such are charities.

I personally donated all my money to the EFF, because I already owned all but one of those games on steam anyway (VVVVVV).

[moi]

I agree with all of OP's point.
Also: charity is often used as a mean of political destabilization or espionage.

I think one of the main problems is that most of these third world countries have governments that are extremely corrupt to say the least.

This the kind of thinking that people get in the western hemisphere ."These people can't help themselves so we have to send charity, also they have cartoon governments"
All that is part of the problem, it's a remnant of colonialism.

[Jasmine]

Charitable aid for foreign nations is done to 'friend' those nations, to persuade them to adopt western values instead sitting back and watching them be taken under the wing of the more socialist nations.

US is one of the most charitable nations, and charity has become part of their national identity. That happened because of the political games the US government played throughout the cold war.

[Paul Eres]

socialism was invented in the west too -- i don't think it makes sense to call socialism non-western; marx was german

also monetary aide to foreign nations is not usually considered "charity". charity is when people voluntarily give to other people, not when government taxes people and then gives it to people. you wouldn't call social security or medicare or medicaid charities for instance, nor free health care in countries with free health care

[Zaphos]

The OP's first two examples (hunger, medicine) seem more about why charity is difficult to get right.  Which isn't a reason to give up on it, just a reason to be careful about how it's done.  It's also something that charity groups are I think very aware of, and social impact measurement is something people are actively working on afaik.

Re the third example (government-related) -- donating and activism aren't "either/or", you can do both -- and if you donate to a political group they will quite likely contact you later asking you to do more of both, since organizing rallies, letter campaigns, etc, is one of the things those groups do.  So, the OP's objection there doesn't make much sense to me.

[Dragonmaw]

ps: socialism ownz

[Gimym TILBERT]

I agree with all of OP's point.
Also: charity is often used as a mean of political destabilization or espionage.

I think one of the main problems is that most of these third world countries have governments that are extremely corrupt to say the least.

This the kind of thinking that people get in the western hemisphere ."These people can't help themselves so we have to send charity, also they have cartoon governments"
All that is part of the problem, it's a remnant of colonialism.

Dictator fund by big society to have freepass helpt by government of any kind.

Also this is africa:



Richest country, poorest people

Do they need charity? Our comfort and wealth rest on their poverty. You are not sending them help you are enslaving them.

It' an example of WRONG

[Trevor Dunbar]

Hmmmm, I thought Texas was supposed to be big.

[peanutbuttershoes]

Texas looks to be bigger than Germany.

Also, Charity is a word.

Companies who's sole purpose is to ask for money for things that they believe are good causes are called "charities" but true charity is still a different thing all together.

Charity is good.

[Zaphos]

[whiny jpg about geography education]

I don't really see it as a huge problem when other people don't know geography facts.  I mean, I do know some of those things but I've never found it useful at all.  It's also really easy to look up.