[anon291]

I literally identified several kinds of noble people in my comment: those who give away money they earn in productive occupations and those who give freely of their time expecting no financial reward for doing so. Many many people do this. But, yes, I don't think those who do paid work for non-profits or charities are more noble than anyone else.

[HappyRobot]

They may not be more noble, but they're a necessary part for the people you describe as nobel. Charities, non-profits, and USAID workers, are there to distribute funds, do research, and audit the economic benefit of funds they are given. If a nobel person is volunteering instead of donating, it still takes individuals to coordinate and request help. If people working for non profits, charities, and aid groups quit to make money to donate, it would be harder to be nobel because there's no one who can distribute and act on the funding.

[anon291]

But USAID is not a charity. That's the point.

A charity and non-profit take money voluntarily donated to it. If USAID were a government administered charitable organization, I may have a different take, but it is not in any way a charitable organization. It uses a threat of violence to siphon whatever money Congress deems appropriate away from Americans, and redirects it to whatever the executive dictates. That is not a charity.

Like I said, I think a national charity is actually a great idea -- if the President and Congress delineated a national charitable project and then encouraged Americans to contribute part of their income towards that... that would be amazing. USAID IS NOT that.

And this was the point of my post. Many people call USAID a charity, when it is nothing close to the sort.

> If people working for non profits, charities, and aid groups quit to make money to donate, it would be harder to be nobel because there's no one who can distribute and act on the funding.

I honestly frankly disagree wholeheartedly. Most American charity used to be administered by non-paid individuals actually volunteering, whether mutual-benefit societies, fraternal organizations, churches, etc.

[HappyRobot]

We disagree with how we want our taxes spent. As long as the government is paying into it, I'm not convinced you would feel any differently if it was a charity or not.

> It uses a threat of violence to siphon whatever money Congress deems appropriate away from Americans, and redirects it to whatever the executive dictates. That is not a charity.

There is no violence. Congress put aside money for USAID and organizations and other groups write grants for ways to distribute that money. Someone has to read and vet these proposals and unfortunately they are paid.

Hey, it would be great for charity to be administered for free, but personally I'm not convinced that there are enough people with free time to donate to make that work. We don't expect social workers, doctors in clinics, counselors, or numerous other aid recipients to work for free so why expect the same from the administrators?

[s1artibartfast]

I dont think you can call it charity if it isnt voluntary

[nradov]

I think you missed some of what USAID did. Besides distributing direct government aid they also provided convenient and deniable non-official covers for many CIA agents. I can't understand why this human intelligence source is being thrown away. It was tremendously valuable to understand what was happening on the ground in a lot of developing countries.