Charity

[DunderMifflin]

I would think the more important question is how we react to ones that tout their own charitability. 

As in how much, if any of a character plus should giving to charity be seen as. 

If it's a result like "well that person's opinions and ideas should be respected with special attention because they give lots to charity" then that's a pretty silly pedestal to put people on iMo.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:13 PM, DunderMifflin said:

I would think the more important question is how we react to ones that tout their own charitability. 

As in how much, if any of a character plus should giving to charity be seen as. 

If it's a result like "well that person's opinions and ideas should be respected with special attention because they give lots to charity" then that's a pretty silly pedestal to put people on iMo.

I think it is more like "I find I agree a lot with "name" and they give to these charities. I think I'll check them out and see if I want to give to them too?"

 

Or "I find so-n-so to be a bully, but he says he donates to charities that do a lot of good. Maybe I have misjudged him" (or whatever)

Not that they get extra respect consideration for the giving, per se.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

On 1/6/2017 at 11:57 PM, OldGimletEye said:

1. I don't necessarily see a problem with talking about your charitable giving, particularly if it is something you really believe in. It's a way to let people know about the charity and to inform them. And it can be a good way to signal to others that the charity is credible.

2. The idea that charity can be a replacement for the welfare/social insurance state is a libertarian fantasy. For example, in the US, we have people that we know can't get medical treatment for pre-existing conditions. Many of us or even a majority might think that is morally and ethically outrageous because we may know people in that situation or we may say to ourselves that could be me, but luckily I'm healthy. Now fixing that problem will require a significant amount of resources. People may recognize it's a significant problem and think something should be done about it. However, if you rely on charity to solve that problem, you would likely run into free rider problems. People would likely bet or hope others would give to the charity to fix that problem. And then you basically end up having a coordination failure, so the problem doesn't get resolved. In my view free rider problems and coordination failures are probably the principle reason why a charity only model doesn't work. And then you probably have various principal agency issues with charities that create problems too.

If charities alone were sufficient to solve a variety of social issues, then you'd have to wonder why social democracies or quasi-social democracies started to develop in most advanced industrial nations during the Twentieth Century around WW2. And you'd have wonder why some of the tenets of classical liberalism became to be doubted, particularly in the United States and England where that theory was the strongest.

OGE - I would suggest that the Reformation in some ways profoundly changed the way that part of the Western world viewed charity.  I would also suggest that the dislocation and destruction in Europe caused by the war created the conditions for those social democracies to develop because need was so great and widespread - then people kinda realized they sort of liked it (though it has not been without challenge).

[sperry]

We live in a social media age, and it's scientifically proven that people get a dopamine rush from positive feedback on social media. So get used to people touting their charitable giving, because it's only going to get more and more prevalent.

 

As for "negating" the charitableness of the donation, I'm not sure what that means. If you're trumpeting your donation, I'm not going to be impressed with it, because you're doing that for yourself. I'm also not particularly impressed with financial donations in general, because they almost never come at any hardship to the giver. People tend to give money of which the marginal utility is close to zero. People aren't skiping out on their vacations or eating ramen noodles so that they can give to the poor. I'm much more impressed with donations of people's time.

 

And the idea of private charity as an acceptable safety net would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. A huge percentage of people would funnel their donations through the religious organizations of their choice, essentially forcing recipients to be evangelized.

[The guy from the Vale]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

OGE - I would suggest that the Reformation in some ways profoundly changed the way that part of the Western world viewed charity.  I would also suggest that the dislocation and destruction in Europe caused by the war created the conditions for those social democracies to develop because need was so great and widespread - then people kinda realized they sort of liked it (though it has not been without challenge).

This is incorrect in its timing. The roots for European social democracy and the welfare state lie in the late 19th and early 20th century. E.g., in Germany,  and the partially socialised health and pensions systems go back to the 1880ies (1883 for health insurance, 1884 for disability insurance, 1889 for pensions).

[Iskaral Pust]

I was wondering why Zabzie thought the Reformation and subsequent war were a pivotal point for charities and social safety nets.  I'd like to hear more. 

The Bismarck social safety net was to rebuff communism in the decades after the communist manifesto and the wave of revolutions in 1848.  The 19th century also saw the Victorian era of workhouses and poorhouses in response to the social disruption from industrialization, urbanization, post-war demob and a greater shift to wage income and consequent risk of unemployment, loss of earnings or just inflation.  Plus you had the potato blight, which affected a lot of the poor in Europe, though rarely quite as bad as Ireland.  And there was a series of financial crises.  So I always associate the 19th century with the social pressures that were really pivotal in creating social safety nets.  Charitable support for the poor was obviously very much relied upon before state systems were devised, mainly through the church, but I never think of the Reformation as especially influential. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

9 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

This is incorrect in its timing. The roots for European social democracy and the welfare state lie in the late 19th and early 20th century. E.g., in Germany,  and the partially socialised health and pensions systems go back to the 1880ies (1883 for health insurance, 1884 for disability insurance, 1889 for pensions).

I find that very interesting. Particularly the partially socialized pensions by 1889. It would be 45 years or so before Roosevelt brought in Soc. Sec. here in the U.S.

[Jo498]

the reformation was indirectly influential if Weber's thesis of the connection between capitalism and "protestant work ethics" has only a little truth. No mendicant orders in protestantism, of course... The reformation was certainly also relevant because they were less strict about usury (which is a cornerstone of modern capitalism). I have not looked into this but one would expect the protestant regions (especially reformed/calvinists) to have become less charitable compared to the catholic ones. Of course, this is only one factor. There is also industrialization, colonization etc. affecting population densities, relative wealth etc. all of which will come into play.

The standard story about the social reforms in the late 19th century German Reich is, as pointed out above, that Bismarck wanted to reduce the social pressure to avoid socialist parties or even revolutionary forces becoming too strong. (Apparently he was not as sure as Lenin that there never would be a revolution in Germany because Germans would buy a ticket before taking over a train station.)

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

12 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I find that very interesting. Particularly the partially socialized pensions by 1889. It would be 45 years or so before Roosevelt brought in Soc. Sec. here in the U.S.

New Zealand introduced fully socialised pensions paid for out of general taxation in 1898. That wasn't conservatives trying to stave off revolution though, this was just an extremely radical bunch of reformers playing with the colony as a "laboratory experiment" - an opportunity to build a better Britain in the South Pacific. That Government also gave women the vote, introduced compulsory arbitration for industrial disputes (which would last in some form or other until the late twentieth century), and (most spectacularly of all) forcibly broke up vast landed estates into small farms, which the Government leased out to farmers. You were dealing with at least one Cabinet Minister who had grown up a poor crofter in Scotland, and regarded concentrated land ownership as the root of all evil.

[The Marquis de Leech]

44 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

(Apparently he was not as sure as Lenin that there never would be a revolution in Germany because Germans would buy a ticket before taking over a train station.)

I thought Lenin's line was that German revolutionaries would always keep to the pavement when confronted with a Do Not Walk On The Grass sign.

[Jo498]

I have read both versions. The Bahnsteigkarte (platform access ticket) is harder to understand nowadays, because it has been decades since one had to buy a ticket to be admitted to the station or platform even when only picking someone up.

Note another "smart" thing about German style social security and pensions: They are (usually and in principle, there are complications) not paid by general taxpayers. Rather only by the workers/employees who later benefit from them. So this can be somewhat of a problem because self-employed people sometimes do not pay into these "insurances". This leads for the poor self-employed to risk poverty in older age and the rich self-employed are excused from paying into the system. Most of the time this is not a serious problem but it means that a certain segment of the populace, namely the "normal" employees (i.e. no entrepreneurs, self-employed, certain types of civil servants etc.) has to pay proportionally more into the social security systems. (Especially because the more money one has the easier it usually gets to pay proportionally less tax but it is virtually impossible for a normal employee to pay less into the social security, there are some options with part-time jobs + free-lancing but it might not be legal, not sure. One cannot really opt out, so if the contributions are raised by a law there is nothing one can do but pay, creatively doctored (often legal due to loopholes) tax return is impossible for social security payments).

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I stand corrected on the origins, particularly in Germany.  Thanks

I do think the Reformation, at least in England, was hugely influential in creating the modern welfare state.  Prior to the dissolution of the monasteries and the expulsion of the Catholic church in general, the church provided a lot of what we think of as the "safety net", including medical care (such as it was), and almshouses that were privately funded by the wills of individuals trying to buy their way into heaven.  There was also an acceptance of poverty, which, depending on your views was extremely unhealthy (including the faux poverty/asceticism of many within the church) or retrospectively quite progressive (exposure of elites to poverty on a regular basis with an emphasis on tithing and charity).  With the church gone, and poverty increasing, Elizabeth 1 passed the first Poor Law, which made care of the indigent a community responsibility.  This is the government stepping in to require the safety net and had the first notions of "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" and a work sort of requirement.  The workhouses replaced the parish system set up by these laws.  So, anyhow, that's what I mean.