Mar 14 2013: Oh, yes, I would definitely like to live in a world where there are no beggars, whether they beg directly or through not for profit organizations because that would mean people finally figured out how to make the world a place where it is never necessary to beg in order to live. Requiring beggars in the world so that one can feel good about giving has questionable value.
I think perhaps there are degrees of charitable merit. While it is commendable to give because you benefit from giving, whether spiritually or otherwise, rather than not giving at all, surely he who gives merely because there is a need is even more commendable.
Again, the fact that the government bureaucracy is not efficient at getting the benefits of giving to the beneficiary is not a good argument against the bureaucracy. It is an argument for an improved bureaucracy that does the job with as little waste as possible.
Government services are outsourced in order to shrink a perceived bloated government and appeal to voters as fiscally responsible. It's the same as in private industry where jobs are contracted out and everyone benefits except the person actually doing the job, who typically receives less pay and benefits because the contractor has to have his cut.
Mar 13 2013: It is true that the giver of charity benefits greatly from the giving. I think my point may be that we have no more reason to believe that the charitable institutions can do a better job of giving than can the institutions established by elected representatives of the people expressing the charitable wishes of the people.
Bear in mind that charitable institutions fund themselves through begging for funds as evidenced by all the unwelcome phone calls everyone receives from the myriad of charitable institutions in the world. We might just as well have beggars in the street, which every big city has anyway but would certainly be more numerous but for the begging by phone and whatever effective governmental programs exist that are funded by taxes.
Mar 13 2013: This has a political component. Why shouldn't people who live in representative democracies be able to empower their governments to provide for all who live in that same representative democracy if that is even possible? Surely, the fact that governments are not trusted to be competent to do so doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad idea. It just means more competent people should be elected, that perhaps it should be an electoral issue, and that electors should understand the issues. All of this is moot if the citizenry doesn't really think representative democracy works very well.
There are people in the world for whom the word "charity" carries the same connotations as the word "entitlement" does for others and for the same reason.
Mar 12 2013: Since the subject is charity, here's a reminder: The highest form of charity, and by highest I mean the best and most moral, is to give in such a way that the giver does not know to whom the charity goes and the recipient does not know from whom it comes. Taxes, anyone?
Oct 15 2012: I remember reading at one time that the middle class is composed of professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, university professors, managers, etc. It is the class that, if allowed to expand, benefits the country the most.
Another definition is those whose income is in the median zone so that they have more income than 50% of the population and less income than 50%.
It may be that most believe that if they are not poverty stricken and also not rich, that they are middle class. I think, perhaps, that is the reason both parties seek to tap into this large reservoir of voters. They're easy to reach if they all believe they are middle class and part of the great majority most like themselves. People are likelier to vote for those they believe are like themselves because they conclude that people like themselves will produce the kind of results most beneficial to them.
That belief may be valid, but only if the underlying belief that they are middle class is true. So it seems to me extraordinarily important that politicians define exactly what they mean when they claim to represent middle class values.
Sep 9 2012: Got to wonder why bother with elections at all? Elections cost money, Just have everyone send money to the government on behalf of the candidate they support. That way, everyone gets a "vote," including legal and illegal immigrants and other groups not normally empowered to vote and the government can wipe out the debt. The rich and corporations would still be able to spend as much as they like and their money would be put to good use. Direct democracy in action. Seems as reasonable as saying that corporations are people.
Sep 9 2012: Well, I don't know about Bulgarians, but you, sir, do sound like a pessimist. Good for you. Makes you question and think. Still, I would advise you not to be too despairing about the state of the democracies. There are lots of smart people out there, and they're not all college professors, who listen to the political debates and understand very well the blatant manipulative maneuvers used by politicians to avoid real debate about real issues. It really helps to read some history, being careful to soak up only facts as much as possible, so that when some politician tries to gain favor by attacking some group, such as welfare recipients, or the wealthy class, or gypsies, or whomever, you can think a little and "Oh, yeah, Hitler did that against Jews and Gypsies." Once you spot that nonsense once, it gets easier and easier to spot its new incarnations whereby they try to scare you into voting for them. I love the quote: "The Gods first make mad those they would destroy" if you think of the word "mad" in the common sense of meaning "angry." So the brain science that revealed that the way to get voters by manipulating their emotions was not a revolution at all. It was a confirmation.
Sep 9 2012: The U.S. is a representative democracy in which the peoples' will is vested in their elected representatives to the government. It is a democracy. Perhaps you believe that only direct democracy is real democracy?
Apr 13 2012: John, Laddie, FYI, your body belongs to you. Anyone tries to force you to have a sex-change operation and uterus implant for the purpose of sex with you and having babies would have a fight on his hands. Ditto for women. Now do you get it?
Apr 13 2012: Blazn, don't make the mistake of thinking in either-or terms. It's wrong to think that either women can have access to birth control or she can have access to programs that relieve poverty and injustice but not both. It's wrong to think that if women get access to birth control that nobody will then notice that poverty and injustice still exist.
If a problem is many-faceted, as poverty and injustice are, the solutions are also many-faceted and access to birth control for women is one of those facets, not the only one. Most people get that. Do you get that women's access to birth control will not lead to the abandonment of the search for all solutions to poverty and injustice?
TEDCred score: +0.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
I think perhaps there are degrees of charitable merit. While it is commendable to give because you benefit from giving, whether spiritually or otherwise, rather than not giving at all, surely he who gives merely because there is a need is even more commendable.
Again, the fact that the government bureaucracy is not efficient at getting the benefits of giving to the beneficiary is not a good argument against the bureaucracy. It is an argument for an improved bureaucracy that does the job with as little waste as possible.
Government services are outsourced in order to shrink a perceived bloated government and appeal to voters as fiscally responsible. It's the same as in private industry where jobs are contracted out and everyone benefits except the person actually doing the job, who typically receives less pay and benefits because the contractor has to have his cut.
A reply on Talk: Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
Bear in mind that charitable institutions fund themselves through begging for funds as evidenced by all the unwelcome phone calls everyone receives from the myriad of charitable institutions in the world. We might just as well have beggars in the street, which every big city has anyway but would certainly be more numerous but for the begging by phone and whatever effective governmental programs exist that are funded by taxes.
A reply on Talk: Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
There are people in the world for whom the word "charity" carries the same connotations as the word "entitlement" does for others and for the same reason.
A comment on Talk: Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
A comment on Conversation: What is the universally accepted definition of the "middle class?"
Another definition is those whose income is in the median zone so that they have more income than 50% of the population and less income than 50%.
It may be that most believe that if they are not poverty stricken and also not rich, that they are middle class. I think, perhaps, that is the reason both parties seek to tap into this large reservoir of voters. They're easy to reach if they all believe they are middle class and part of the great majority most like themselves. People are likelier to vote for those they believe are like themselves because they conclude that people like themselves will produce the kind of results most beneficial to them.
That belief may be valid, but only if the underlying belief that they are middle class is true. So it seems to me extraordinarily important that politicians define exactly what they mean when they claim to represent middle class values.
A reply on Talk: Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?
A comment on Talk: Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?
A reply on Talk: Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?
A reply on Talk: Melinda Gates: Let's put birth control back on the agenda
A reply on Talk: Melinda Gates: Let's put birth control back on the agenda
If a problem is many-faceted, as poverty and injustice are, the solutions are also many-faceted and access to birth control for women is one of those facets, not the only one. Most people get that. Do you get that women's access to birth control will not lead to the abandonment of the search for all solutions to poverty and injustice?