Obviously there are examples of ineffective organizations, but I don’t think that makes fundraising a net bad. (Though, perhaps one could argue that overall funding could shift money away from more effective organizations, and that would be a net bad.)
~
Because if we have a cultural shift such that giving to charity is seen as a low-status act done only by show-offs rather than concerned individuals
I have written a lengthy and detailed comment in response to your questions, and you have not engaged with what I wrote, but just followed up with more general questions. As a result I am disinclined to continue this conversation.
I can understand why you would be disincentivized to continue and I appreciate what you’ve contributed so far. But I felt like a lot of what you wrote about was not relevant to what I was writing about.
You seemed to argue that ineffective organizations exist. I acknowledge that, but also argue that effective organizations exist. Do you deny that effective orgs exist or do you think it would be counterproductive to fundraise for effective organizations as well?
You seemed to argue that ineffective organizations exist. I acknowledge that, but also argue that effective organizations exist. Do you deny that effective orgs exist or do you think it would be counterproductive to fundraise for effective organizations as well?
Why re-ask these questions when I’ve already answered them? To recapitulate...
“Does this mean that all charities are terrible and should be eliminated? No. Does this mean that all private companies are perfect? No. But, on that margin, I’d like to see more problems solved by market activity and fewer by charity.” [emphasis added]
I understand that’s what you’re saying. But how do you draw from that the conclusion that you’d “answer in the negative” the question “[s]hould we be encouraging charitable giving?”
Obviously there are examples of ineffective organizations, but I don’t think that makes fundraising a net bad. (Though, perhaps one could argue that overall funding could shift money away from more effective organizations, and that would be a net bad.)
~
Why do you think that would happen?
I have written a lengthy and detailed comment in response to your questions, and you have not engaged with what I wrote, but just followed up with more general questions. As a result I am disinclined to continue this conversation.
I can understand why you would be disincentivized to continue and I appreciate what you’ve contributed so far. But I felt like a lot of what you wrote about was not relevant to what I was writing about.
You seemed to argue that ineffective organizations exist. I acknowledge that, but also argue that effective organizations exist. Do you deny that effective orgs exist or do you think it would be counterproductive to fundraise for effective organizations as well?
Why re-ask these questions when I’ve already answered them? To recapitulate...
“Does this mean that all charities are terrible and should be eliminated? No. Does this mean that all private companies are perfect? No. But, on that margin, I’d like to see more problems solved by market activity and fewer by charity.” [emphasis added]
I understand that’s what you’re saying. But how do you draw from that the conclusion that you’d “answer in the negative” the question “[s]hould we be encouraging charitable giving?”