• cogman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s about stopping centralized programs which would actually address public needs. “We don’t need universal healthcare, here’s a charity that helps people with the bubonic plague!”

    And in the worst cases, it’s a grift for the wealthy. Where the charities exist to do scammy things like pay the founder to fly to luxury resorts to give a talk about why poverty is bad. Or to fund your family members solar manufacturing company. Or to put fuel into your church’s private jet so you don’t run the risk of catching demons from the public.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think that’s the intent behind it, but it’s certainly an impact.
      Charity is a stopgap to a systematic solution to addressing a lot of problems.
      Your local food bank isn’t bad, but it does hide the issue of food insecurity behind a solution that isn’t guaranteed to be available to everyone like UBI or expanded food stamp access would.

      Those cruddy charities do exist, but I think usually businesses try to avoid them because of the risk of backlash. The people running the programs usually try to do what they can to pick good charities at the least, since it’s basically all the same to the business.
      Not much that they can do about the CEOs spouse getting a spot on the charity board though.