[cherrycherry98]

This seems to assume that the government is benevolent, whereas private actors are not. I have come to view government programs with the perspective that they are intended primarily to benefit the politicians efforts to become reelected. They can claim to be saving the world, but with other people's money. Some good may come of these efforts but I don't view them as inherently virtuous. You argue that private actors let personal politics dictate how they direct their funds, if the alternative is allowing politicians to do so, I don't see how that is much better.

I am perfectly content with private actors deciding how best to use their own money for philanthropic purposes. It leads to a more diverse set of approaches. If there are people that believe in one thing and others that believe the opposite they should both be allowed to fund what they think is right without a democratic majority stifling minority points of view.

I do not have a point of view on whether it is worthy of a tax break.

[lmm]

> This seems to assume that the government is benevolent, whereas private actors are not.

Not so much benevolent as accountable. The government, for all its faults, has a huge edifice of checks and balances, and while the gears grind slowly they do limit how far astray things can go. A private 503c is a real wild west in comparison.

[rufus_foreman]

If a charity to which I contribute does a single thing I don't like, I can decide to never give them another penny.

If the government doesn't do a single thing I like, more than half my income still goes to taxes each year to fund the government (income, property, sales, etc.), and there is nothing I can realistically do to change that.

Which one is accountable?

[lmm]

When we're talking about something that's supposed to support a whole community, being "accountable" to the whims of one individual is not a meaningful level of accountability. Changing government policy requires broad consensus from many people, which is exactly as it should be.

[s1artibartfast]

This assumes that charities are "supposed" to support the whole community, which I don't think is true.

It also assumes that government policies support the whole community, which I don't think is true either. It is pretty common for policies to harm one group in the community and benefit a different group in the community.

[lmm]

All the more reason they need to be accountable to the community as a whole rather than a small handful of individuals.

[rufus_foreman]

OK, we're using words differently here.

I think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what I want, and you think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what you want.

[barry-cotter]

> Not so much benevolent as accountable.

Remind me. Who was fired for Waco? Who at the CDC was fired for stopping the Seattle Flu Study from testing for COVID, or for banning commercial labs from testing for it while their own lab reported all samples as positive because of contamination?