[Iridescent_]

Who deserves to receive help (and, by contrast, who is undeserving of even basic decency) should never, ever be the decision of a few ploutocrats. The state should decide on such matters, and be the upholder of equality. Else, misery becomes a contest for who can be the most compelling, most attractive miserable to the elites.

[igor47]

I think the whole point of EA is to avoid the misery contest and funnel philanthropy dollars in the most effective way, though there's a lot of disagreement inside the movement on what constitutes effectiveness.

On the radical statism -- I guess maybe? At least the in the US right now, we certainly don't have a government that's good at directing money to the most needy. See e.g. the while USAID fiasco. Even if we had a government willing to fund international aid, I still think there is room in the world for people donating to causes they care about. If nothing else, this is how new causes rise to prominence, to be recognized by the official channels.

[zozbot234]

There's no such thing as "the state" except as a societal arrangement. When you argue that "the state" should decide on who gets what, what you're really saying is that this should be the decision of a few power-crazed career bureaucrats, with no accountability whatsoever or any "skin in the game". At least the plutocrat is paying for the aid out of pocket: he will care somewhat that the money is not outright misused. Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?

[ajuc]

> power-crazed career bureaucrats

Choosen by elected officials. Consistently underpaid.

As opposed to famously power-awerse and accountable middle management in corporations :)

> Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?

Think of state like a corporation in which every worker is in the board and has voting rights. Maybe then you'll get it.

[goatlover]

There's no such thing as "society" except for societal arrangement. And societies of any decent size for the past several thousand years have arranged for governments who decide all sorts of things. Why would state aid be decided by a few "power-crazed" career bureaucrats in representative democracies? This sounds like a libertarian screed against the state doing anything but the minimal.

[zozbot234]

Because career bureaucrats are the only way of running a large organizational arrangement that can even reach a semblance of "deciding all sorts of things". A few hundred representatives can't go at it alone. You get career bureaucrats in private enterprise too, of course, but the idea is that they should at least be kept on a short leash to whatever extent is feasible. That fails completely when you're dealing with an actual government at any scale bigger than a small village or HOA.

[ajuc]

Corporations have way worse track records than countries, tho.

Compare colonies run by countries to colonies run by corporations for one example.

The difference is that in corporations you don't get to vote on who is the CEO.

And your country can't usually remove your citizenship without a REALLY good reason.