[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.

[lmm]

The whole point of "giving" is that it's no longer "my money". If it's still your money then it's not a donation.