Key Concept: Statists engage in charity robbing.
Would you give more money to charity if you were taxed less? If so, then the statists are robbing your charities to fund their favored cause — The State!
Statists prefer aid programs that are paid for with violence-based funding (taxation). This robs your charities. The money grabbed from you cannot be used to support the voluntary sector causes you love.
For instance… Would you rather fund the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or Habitat for Humanity, or some other cause entirely? Statists deny you that choice. Worse…
The statist approach concentrates resources behind a single system of aid. This strangles innovation. Society loses the improvements we would normally gain from having competition between multiple strategies and institutions. Thus…
The statist approach is both greedy and harmful.
To stop “charity robbing,” you must embrace the Zero Aggression Principle…
Don’t threaten or initiate force, personally or politically.
Violence-based funding (taxation) must be replaced by voluntary funding. This one simple change would make state agencies compete with other charitable institutions. Things work better with competition. Help make this happen. Subscribe…
My main problem with large charities is their overhead expense. Many charity executives are very well paid. The IRS comes to play by discouraging me to be personally charitable. That is, I cannot deduct my substantial charity from my income tax. …Add this thought to your article and I will like it better.
Yes, this is foundationally important. However, the change would have to be gradual. In other words, the people would have a choice of charity in the housing category, for instance, when they pay their taxes. They would go to a web site and help distribute their portion of the budget between, say, HUD and Habitat. That way the existing recipients of HUD funding would not find themselves out in the cold over night. The state would be required to change the target for budgeting, or wean us off of HUD, in a gradual manner as being determined by the people and while allowing time for Habitat housing to be made available for those coming off of HUD subsidy.
Of course that will never happen.
What will “never happen” is change of paradigm coming from the top, e.g., no choice that could weaken statism would be allowed. Statists are not stupid and cannot be tricked into a voluntarist path. Or, as a disillusioned communist once said: “If voting would change the things, it would be outlawed.”
The only gradual approach is what is happening now. Gradually, with the ‘net, people are becoming enlightened. With enlightenment comes the death of superstition. And “The Most Dangerous Superstition” will be abandoned, with our ancestors wondering how the world could have ever been so barbaric.
Statist: Voluntary funding won’t work because some people will not volunteer to fund. Voluntaryist: All thieves could use the same excuse for their theft. But that argument presupposes the funding is necessary, in fact so much so that to not force the funding would somehow be destructive, on net. That must be proven. At that point the statist stops pretending that reason is on his side, and brings out a gun.
When Barack Hussein Obama threatened every health-related charity with a new tax to be imposed upon voluntary giving, he instantly got many of them to support his scheme called “Obamacare”.
Having once achieved this political result, Obama then dropped the effort to create the new tax.
That’s an example of blackmailing charities to induce them not to oppose statism…as well as a direct threat to steal money from charities and squander it waging war upon Americans.
This threat is very real. It happens. The people who cannot see this happening, remind me of the prison warden in Mexico who said he could not hear the sound of men with jackhammers drilling a tunnel under the prison, for the escape of human-trafficking kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. That warden is serving hard time for taking money to pretend the jackhammering wasn’t real…he’s been convicted and sentenced.
The naysayers who express fear, that perhaps, if we liberated more people to do more charity, there would be unmet needs, are missing the point completely.
Charity robbing is a real crime against humanity that’s happening right now, and it’s causing a hell of a lot of unmet needs.
There is no down side, to stopping the political violence immediately.
I will never give to any charity ever again. Almost all of them are created and ran by unethical, immoral a holes. What these lazy worthless aholes do is to create a charity they think will generate a big response and thus a lot of donations. They then claim it as a charitable org or trust or whatever they can to get tax exempt status for the income generated. Then they use the donations or income to pay themselves for administering the donations or managing the trust or controlling where the money goes that comes in. They are set up by good for nothing lazy rich people who don’t work and just want to be paid for stealing generous people’s money. That is what they are doing, stealing those donations that the donors think is going to make it to the cause they donate to. In reality, the administration costs eat upwards of 90% or more of those donations. It is how the Clinton Foundation works, it is how United Way works, it is how just about every single one of the charities or help foundations operate. There are exceptions to the usual scammers though, actual organizations that really do take in donations and them pay them out to those in need. The one I know of that is good and fair to all is the Salvation Army. It’s CEO and its operators earn very small salaries where the others take massive chunks of the money. Remember Haiti a few years ago? The massive earthquake that devastated that island nation? A couple of past presidents even made commercials in order to bilk the American people and steal from us all because they are worthless greedy scumbags. Look at Haiti today and ask, ‘Where did all those hundreds of millions of dollars in cash get spent?’. ‘Why are the Haitian people still living in tents with no running water or electricity?’ It is because those charities were set up with one goal. To enrich the lazy rich people who feel it is your duty to give to them so they can take what they want and then throw crumbs to the ones who were intended to receive the bulk of the donations all while patting themselves on the back for doing so.
Frankly I prefer any charity, even the not so honest ones, to the federal ‘government’. Charity is a choice, people can choose to do their research and not get burned, or they can just donate on a whim.(Unlike the federal ‘government’, which has gone way beyond Thomas Jefferson’s view: “That government governs best which governs least.” to controlling by taxation and regulation practically every aspect of our lives, and spends our hard earned money worse than drunken sailors would.) I would also like to give kudos to crisis pregnancy centers, that do so much good for so little, and whose executives earn small salaries, as well.