[jokethrowaway]

I don't see why I wouldn't trust a charity to do what they claim, filtered by their brand reputation and public opinion (exactly like I would for a corporation).

I can't trust the government (and education) to do anything but try to hoard more money at the expense of citizens.

The only problem is the governmental parasites polarising and dividing the people, while increasing spending every year.

[thu2111]

Charities don't really develop reputations except among a tiny subset of people who are unusually interested in that specific charity. That's because the people who give them money aren't getting anything in return whose quality they can judge. Money goes into a black hole, you hope it does some good but short of reading lots of obscure reports and paperwork, you can't find out.

Example: Wikimedia Foundation. How many people who donate realise that their money isn't paying for Wikipedia but rather a huge very well paid staff that work on separate websites? How many people realise the Foundation has plenty of money and doesn't need more? Virtually none - they just take it for granted that a charity would never mislead them by claiming it was essential that you donate RIGHT NOW to stop Wikipedia going offline or being covered in ads.

That's what I mean by capitalism working very well. When dealing with a company you give them some money but also get something in return that you can judge. There are also lots of review sites, magazines, friendship circles and other forums where people can compare notes to see how their experiences match up. Reputations roughly correlate with actual quality of results. Outside of capitalist interactions reputation is often entirely artificial or even circular, for instance, in academia "this person has a great reputation because everyone says they have a great reputation" is de rigour.