
Charity is no substitute for humanity - smacktoward
https://hmmdaily.com/2019/05/01/charity-is-no-substitute-for-humanity/
======
ATsch
I think another thing to think about with charity is control and agency.
Charity is, I'd argue inherently extremely undemocratic. Most people will
never be able to afford philanthropy in any meaningful way, so Charity means
subjugating yourself to the control and decisions of richer and more powerful
people. There are more and less extreme cases of this, of course. I vaguely
remember a eugenics charity in the US that paid "lesser" people to sterilize
themselves or perform abortions. However, even in less extreme cases, the top
down control of charity is inherently oppressive. It allows rich people to
"vote with their wallets" on the lives of the general population. Sure,
everyone can technically vote, but some people have a million times more votes
than others.

Does this mean we should outlaw charities? I don't think so. This only becomes
a problem in a country where there is extreme wealth inequality and the rights
of the general populace are not guaranteed. Charity seems like a good way to
stuff small holes in a general welfare system, but it shouldn't be _the_
welfare system.

~~~
Kaiyou
Can you answer why this is a problem in terms of costs and benefits
presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life? If you argue with
certain moral beliefs at your core your probably only reaching deaf ears from
key figures that could help change things. Appealing to someone's self-
interest is more efficient.

~~~
ATsch
> presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life

I mean, you can argue anything if you make your assumptions ridiculous enough.

If your approach is to let other people die because that's more efficient then
sorry, I'm not very open to your arguments about self-interest.

(I don't want to engage in too much character assassination but: There's this
joke that within the first few pages of the comments of any Libertarian
account, you will find them defending pedophilia in some way. I'm pleased to
say that this rule still applies)

~~~
Kaiyou
Your problem seems to be, that you need arguments to convince someone to do
something that you want him to do. I don't care if you're not convinced. I
don't need you doing something for my benefit.

------
Deestan
People should not have to live or die depending repeated random acts of
kindness from strangers.

So many American feel-good news stories are utterly dystopian, where some
person completely _fucked dry_ by the government or corporate interests have
disaster temporarily staved off by friends or colleagues desperately
sacrificing their time or money. Either that, or it's about some billionaire
dropping pocket lint on a good cause.

Sites like [https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-
news](https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news) just make me depressed:

[https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3283/Man-Shares-Chick-
Fi...](https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3283/Man-Shares-Chick-Fil-A-
Employee-039-s-Quiet-Act-Of-Kindness) \- man starving on the streets gets one
meal our of sheer luck

[https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3279/7-Eleven-Owner-
Catc...](https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3279/7-Eleven-Owner-Catches-
Shoplifter-Instead-Of-Calling-911-He-Asks-Him-Why) \- starving children win
the getting-fucked-for-life vs eating-a-meal lottery one single time. Thoughts
and prayers go to their next 1000 times they need to play.

[https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3270/Unused-Cafeteria-
Fo...](https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3270/Unused-Cafeteria-Food-Is-
Being-Turned-Into-Take-Home-Meals-For-Kids) \- starving children (Why is this
even a thing anywhere?) are allowed to eat leftovers.

~~~
roenxi
> People should not have to live or die depending repeated random acts of
> kindness from strangers.

That is true, but the flip side is that people should not have to live or die
depending on compelled acts of strangers either.

No ideological purity survives the myriad of real world circumstances; but the
normal case should be that people don't need charity because when life hits
them hard there are avenues where they can live a dignified life through their
own hard work.

~~~
cannonedhamster
If all it took was hard work to live a dignified life there would already be
plenty of dignity. The fact of the matter is the world doesn't work on dreams,
hopes, and hard work. Silicon Valley had plenty of failed companies to prove
this. It works on the fact that bad things happen to good people, good things
happen to bad people and the vast majority of your ability to deal with that
comes from how much money your parents had, something over which you have no
control. The fact that you have to pay dues in the form of taxes to be part of
something like the United States shouldn't be a hard choice to make. We're all
willing to pay for corporate welfare, military excess, public land give aways
to private entities, but heaven forbid we give up a little bit of cash in the
form of taxes to help our fellow citizen. If you look at the outrage on taxes
it's always when it comes to helping other people. Access to healthcare
shouldn't be a political issue. There is no liberty in a life where one must
make the choice between certain death and loss of freedom. As a citizen you're
also not compelled to stay in the United States. You can gain all the benefits
of citizenship and live in another country. You can even choose to become a
citizen of another country. This idea that you're forced to help your fellow
citizens is plainly a falsehood. As soon as you become an adult you're free to
leave the country. Compulsion is an illusion.

~~~
AstralStorm
No, you are not free to leave because the supposed other country might not
take you in and even if they do it is a big process, nor are the costs of
travel negligible.

~~~
arcticbull
I think every country offers an immigration program of some kind. To get super
pedantic you can show up in Svalbard and live there forever with no
immigration process - you just get off the plane and tell the Norwegian
governor you live there now. So there is always _somewhere_ you can go. I
think the travel costs are the smallest part of immigrating somewhere new
(especially since most immigration programs are employment sponsored). That’s
not to understate the scope of what you’re doing, it’s a big decision, though
it definitely is an option. I guess I’m saying “yes and no.”

------
amundsentb
This article decries people the necessity of people banding together in tough
times and want's more "humanity" meaning that expenses are automatically taken
care of in bad times. The author knows nothing about humanity and what it
entails. Humanity is not a robotic system where ants are ordered.

Societies are built by people interacting and building trust and taking care
of each other in bad times for their own self interest. Not by forcing people
to act against their own judgment.

~~~
mola
The problem is that without the greed of a few most of these charity acts
wouldn't need to exist. Healthcare is extremely expansive and inefficient in
the US because of the greed of a few. This false dichotomy between a freedom
crunching social regime against the freedom saving forces of market is a lie.
Social democratic countries exist, the populus are not subjugadeted to an
opressing regime nor are they left for the mercy of strangers for basic
survival. On top of that, most systems there, even governmental ones are much
more efficient than in the US. And still, there's a free economy, with plenty
of chances for a decent life.

On the other hand the US is controlled by the greed of a few huge corporation,
the people are much less free. As I see it, human society tends to create hubs
of power. The civilian powers are not less prone to oppression than the power
of the state. In a democracy you at least have the moral grounds to fight
corruption. But in a society obsessed with free markets and small government
this power still ends up concentrated in places. But now you as opressed don't
have a moral ground to fight abuses of power. This false dichotomy of freedom
vs welfare means that standing up against the opressors is considerred bad
morally, because it means you are against freedome. Anyway, because it seems
that power have a tendency to concentrate. I'de rather have a moral system
where abuses of power of any kind can be considered morally wrong.

------
test6554
I have always been told that I should save my money and build a nest egg. That
I should not stop until I have 6 months to a year of runway, and that once I
get there, treat that money as if I don’t even have it. I have lived by this
advice and I am grateful for receiving it early.

~~~
jedmeyers
I am also wondering why I have to subsidize everyone else's kids while not
being able to afford my own, since I have relatively high standards for what a
stable financial situation should be before I have them. Charity is voluntary
while taxation is not.

~~~
sgt101
Consider, you have a job, an apartment, dignity.

Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant,
or simply dead. Statistically it would be astonishingly unlikely you would be
in the ruling class, and given that you are posting on HN you probably aren't
a candidate.

You have standards, I respect that, but your community disagrees with you.
Children are our future, they are ours - all of them - and we need to look
after them. They should have food, shelter, healthcare and education. We
should all give them that. If we do we can look each other in the eye and
demand respect, dignity and community. If you are robbed or shamed they you
have a right to be offended and outraged.

If we don't then you and I are wolves in the forest, with everyone else.

~~~
jedmeyers
> Consider, you have a job, an apartment, dignity.

> Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or
> servant, or simply dead.

I do not agree with this premise, especially since you have provided no proof
that it is based in reality. If you were to guess, what was the income tax in
the US in 1900 and were everyone there a surf [sic], servant or dead?

------
_lessthan0
For me having a huge amount of charitable organizations mean that governments
have failed. As a world.

~~~
airstrike
Not to mention a lot of charitable organizations are created as a mean to
evade taxes.

> The IRS estimates that the charitable sector controls approximately USD 3
> trillion (€2.36 trillion) in assets.

[https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-
information/4223203...](https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-
information/42232037.pdf)

------
spbaar
I highly recommend Citations Needed's episode on Perseverance Porn. If you
have ever been uneasy with stories about people walking 10+ miles to work or
relying on charity just to survive a common misfortune, this will open your
eyes to just how prevalent it is.
[https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-23-the-medias-
gri...](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-23-the-medias-grim-
addiction-to-perseverance-porn)

Beware, you'll see it everywhere after this.

