There has been much talk this week about which is best, private charity, or public assistance. I highlight the "or" because this seems like a very strange debate to me. Personally, I doubt that the government are really saying that private charity is a bad thing. Of course, if people want to give money to worthy causes, that is great.
However, as far as I can see, charity is problematic in a number of ways. For a start, almost by definition, people will probably only give enough to charity to avert the very worst catastrophes. People will give to charity to help starving people, but they are unlikely to give enough to fix substandard lving conditions, or other less dramatic cases. As such, a charity based "safety net" would not bring in enough money to put an ambulance at the bottom of half the cliffs, let alone fencing the cliffs off in the first place!
It also creates a huge problem in the sorts of things that will attract money. Only causes attractive to coporates, or the wealthy will have any hope of attracting money. If your cause doesn't involve cute kids or fluffy animals, you'd better watch out!
Finally, the whole notion of people being reliant on charity is just so unattractive. I think this is what Cullen is talking about when he derides "tory charity". The prospect of people being beholden to the wealthy, and having to go cap in hand to them just gives rise to a view of society that is the opposite of egalitarian; a paternal, top-down, Victorian nightmare. For all the faults and strange incentives of the welfare states, at least it gives people some rights, and removes the need to grovel in the dust for a muesli bar!
So of course charity is a good thing, or course it is great when people give their money to worthy causes. We just need to make sure it isnt an excuse to reduce state assistance to the needy, or to make people reliant on the good grace of the rich.
6 comments:
A lot of charitys actually do receive significant govt funding for some of their work. I've heard people say that hospices, for example, don't get any govt money, but actually they do for some parts of their services.
You're right, it doesn't have to be private OR public, and in fact it shouldn't be. We, all of us, have a responsibility to look after each other, and the best way to do that is through a democratic system of government, imho.
I think its worth drawing on the experience of international development in considering charity/social welfare. And by that I mean this:
The spending of New Zealand's own overseas development aid budget is partially determined by where individuals spend their charitable dollars in giving to any number of registered NGO groups in New Zealand. Under the KOHA scheme, charitable dollars get topped up with government funds.
Regardless of this, New Zealand's ODA contributions are ludicrously low given international expectations and there are few calling for them to be higher.
This highlights something about the way that charity works. You like to be charitable to those directly around you, and those for whom your money will make a demonstrable difference which you can witness.
Charity is not defined by need - or if it is, it is the need of the giver to feel good about their contribution. Unfortunatley in overseas development aid it reallu is better to give than to recieve.
The victorian bit that Labour supporters so vehemently dislike is Victorian morality i.e. sexual. They fail to acknowlegdge this morality was responsible for some of the great social gains i.e. outlawing slavery and child prostitution. This is really what is meant by attacking this notion of charity. The rest of it is typical feminist ideology and a whole lot of nonsense about "egalitarianism" which as Bob Jones use to say should be called "envyism" (in a manner of speaking).
Sure there were some good things about Victorian morality, but there was plenty of bad as well. Repression, paternalism etc spring to mind.
If you have a problem with equality or egalitarianism as such, I would have to ask why? Do you view the rich as being better than the poor or middle classes? that is what your comment implies. If that is what you actually think, I would have to say that is quite odd!
And I'm curious about what you meant when you said the rest was typical feminist ideology Patrick? Care to elaborate, I'm not sure I understood (not being snarky, just genuinely interested).
"Single Malt Social Democrat said...
Sure there were some good things about Victorian morality, but there was plenty of bad as well. Repression, paternalism etc spring to mind."
Paternalism is now the Nanny State, it's the same thing all round, just with a different name.
What is repression? Probably Labour has an equivalent.
Best deffo I ever saw of egalitarianism was Bob Jones' view in one of his books... he implied it should really be called "envyism". Egalitarianism leads naturally on to socialism and communism, both of which are based on entirely false premises.
Post a Comment