[1ncorrect]

I see billionaire individuals and organised charities as polar extremes of the same policy failure. Neither should exist, and when they do it should be as an ephemeral anomaly.

Any charity which fails to prioritise putting itself out of business is functionally a grift.

If society truly valued what charities do, their activities would be intrinsically valuable, and not require a special economic status to be conjured for them to be viable.

[FormerBandmate]

People have this idea that you can just solve problems like world hunger by waving a magic wand, but you can’t. There are probably South Sentinelese starving right now, we can’t do anything about that because they won’t let us. The little world hunger that is left today after the advancements of the 20th century is almost entirely in war-torn messes, and you can’t eliminate war unless you eliminate human free will

[bradlys]

Or they are considered valuable but we have a captive market… Many people would like charities to become institutional features instead of charities but then there are other interests who are against such things because then “muh capital”

[1ncorrect]

Charities, as they exist today, serve as a void into which corporations and governments can abdicate their respective responsibilities. Continuing to tolerate charities, at least in their current form, is complicity.