A monopoly on charity

The usual response by command-and-control monopolists to the anxiety that they'll be outcompeted by the private sector:
The same journalist who wrote the recent Time cover story also authored a book savaging philanthropy as “an elite charade” that does more harm than good, a tool of injustice in a rigged system, a means of suppressing dissent, a way of disguising merciless taking by appearing to give back. He attributes to donors every imaginable motive -- vanity, cynical reputation laundering, undemocratic manipulation, drop-in-the-bucket cheapness -- except altruism and good faith. For these fashionable arguments the work was anointed a “book of the year” by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and NPR.
Other critics make the same arguments. Philanthropic giving is “an undemocratic exercise of power” which should be wielded only by the state, says Stanford’s resident philanthropy academic. Even well-intentioned charitable efforts must be shut down, say the new activists, because they undercut the revenue and authority of the federal government. Powerful interests ranging from elite media to Democrats running for president insist that only government officials should be allowed to improve public welfare and reform society.


Grim said...

While I do wonder what the effects will be of free individuals with direct control over resources equivalent to several small nations, I am sure that centralized government control is not the answer.

james said...

I do not love the phrase the author uses in conclusion. "Factually incorrect"? No, the accusation referred to is a "malicious lie."

I know this assumes something about the liar's motive, but I think, given how much wilful blindness would be needed for the accusation to be almost innocent, that my conclusion is sound.

J Melcher said...

" work was anointed a “book of the year” by ... NPR."

Given that it's "pledge week" at my local NPR affiliate, I experience a deep sense of irony that the network agrees with and endorses condemnation of philanthropy and the charitable motives of the community.

In all truth the small donations of "listeners like you" are the minority source of funding in the broadcaster's budget. Should the Foundations and Corporations of Dallas suddenly abandon the KERA broadcasting team, the airwaves would be a lot quieter (for a little while). But the Dallas radio market has several stations which are majority-funded by ONLY local small donors, and focus ONLY on either local issues or how national issues affect the Dallas - Fort Worth area. These are usually "Christian" broadcasters; though there are few small, low-power, stations serving Black and Spanish-speaking markets, again mostly funded by donations; most of those by fairly middle-class donors.

NPR, IMHO, needs some time contemplating a mirror.

Dad29 said...

effects will be of free individuals with direct control over resources equivalent to several small nations

My response will sound FAR more flippant and disrespectful than it is meant to be....


Soros has those resources, as does Bloomberg. They haven't yet convinced Middle America (nor Middle Hungary, nor Middle Poland) of anything substantive....

E Hines said...

I echo Dad. Those small nations exert very little influence, and so do the Soroses, Bloombergs of the world. Except as mice that roar.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

If the mice roars, can you find epstein and have him testify about soros?

Underestimating the enemy can feel good but it is rarely a strategic benefit.

Yes soros is a tool less than 1% in power to the dark gods of the cabal.... but it does not make them easier to kill by anyone here