I almost never give any money to charity because most charities are useless; some are even harmful.
The main beneficiaries of a charity are not the recipients, but the givers. People donate because of feeling of guilt or shame. Some givers get tax benefits, some boost their ego of being better than others. Charity primarily exists to make the donor feel good. It assuages the guilt people accrue over their life, for real or imaginary reasons. In most cases, philanthropy doesn't arise from the love of one's fellow man, but from a need to assuage guilt, a need to show off and a lack of imagination.
Many film stars and famous personalities associate themselves with a charity because of their pride. It is not about improving life of others; it is about being more famous. They buy fame by giving away the money that was either easily earned or undeservedly received.
A charity is corrupting to both parties involved. The recipient of the charity usually does not deserve it. People should have/get things because they deserve them, earn them. People should contribute to improving the state of the world. Rewarding people because they have had bad luck or are stupid, is actually immoral.
A person receiving charity usually does not improve fast. The charity causes an urgent situation to become non-urgent. It takes away the incentive to improve. So charity is a not a virtue; it is a vice.
Poverty is not a function of bad luck, in most cases. Poverty is usually a sign of bad habits. In a free country, it is usually an inability to save i.e. unwillingness to produce more than you consume.
Poverty indicates a lack of self-discipline. Most poor people dream of being rich, but indulge in sloth. Most poor people are not victims of anything other than their own bad habits.
Charity transfers wealth from creators of wealth to consumers of wealth. Money should be in hands of most competent and productive people; the people who create wealth for others. Any effort to take wealth from wealthy (productive) to the poor (non-productive) is counter-productive.
Take the example of UN that accepts donations. The UN is a corrupt club of governments. It should be abolished, but stupid people donate to it.
Let say that there is a natural disaster. Many people donate. Charities rush with food, medicines, etc. Does this help the recipients? Free food hits the market; the price of food falls; so local farmers can't produce profitably. Local farmers go out of business. There is no crop next year. Food shortage becomes worse. The very act of charities trying to help a famine stricken area, prolongs the famine.
Now, consider charitable organizations going round the world treating diseases. Countries have terrible diseases that kill many people, because they are economically underdeveloped. So giving free medicines is like putting band-aid on smallpox. It does not help in solving the problem.
A charitable organization will have secretaries, assistant vice-presidents, etc. Lot of money is wasted on bureaucracy. This is in addition to charities doing more harm than good for recipients.
Governments helping the poor is worse kind of charity because the money comes from taxes. People are forced to pay the taxes and hence are left with less money to give to people who genuinely need help. The idea that "Government can deploy wealth better than people who create wealth " is ridiculous.
When should we give in charity?
I give in charity only to people I know for a long time. These people sometimes need a helping hand. I should feel good about helping; not give because of any guilt. Charity should never be institutionalized, because it creates distortions in marketplace. Charities also tend to attract corrupt people.
We should abolish all charitable institutions and government handouts. Don't replace them with anything. Instead, reduce taxes and regulations to permit more wealth creation. To select few desperate deserving cases, individual conscience would suffice.
Charity should be strictly individual, a one-on-one transaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment