You make some money. Which is taxed in various ways. The pie gets bigger, the state (and the People) are getting a cut.
Then you are told you should do more. And you also think, well, why not help the world?
Then you are told: but don't waste your time volunteering at a shelter -- better work and donate your money instead.
OK, so you don't get the satisfaction of seeing the humans you help but you know that at least your donation helps, maybe, the same humans you want.
A restricted donation gives you some agency into improving the world. You are still abstracted away, you don't really see the humans you are supposedly helping, but at least the money only goes into improving the world into some dimension that needs improving and that you consider relevant.
But no, what you must do is just donate unrestricted. That is, have no agency, have no interaction with actual humans in need, be just a wallet that helps, maybe, something as defined by the entity that receives the money. Your only choice is who spends it and how much to give them.
At this point, how about we bring this to the logical conclusion that THERE SHOULD BE NO NONPROFITS. Clearly, if those with the already taxed money can't have an opinion, why should those nonprofits know what's what? You know who could spend the money: the State!
So, abolish non-profits, and make the State as the sole decider of how things get spent. Then you can donate unrestricted to the State or just push for some taxes being raised.
You make some money. Which is taxed in various ways. The pie gets bigger, the state (and the People) are getting a cut.
Then you are told you should do more. And you also think, well, why not help the world?
Then you are told: but don't waste your time volunteering at a shelter -- better work and donate your money instead.
OK, so you don't get the satisfaction of seeing the humans you help but you know that at least your donation helps, maybe, the same humans you want.
A restricted donation gives you some agency into improving the world. You are still abstracted away, you don't really see the humans you are supposedly helping, but at least the money only goes into improving the world into some dimension that needs improving and that you consider relevant.
But no, what you must do is just donate unrestricted. That is, have no agency, have no interaction with actual humans in need, be just a wallet that helps, maybe, something as defined by the entity that receives the money. Your only choice is who spends it and how much to give them.
At this point, how about we bring this to the logical conclusion that THERE SHOULD BE NO NONPROFITS. Clearly, if those with the already taxed money can't have an opinion, why should those nonprofits know what's what? You know who could spend the money: the State!
So, abolish non-profits, and make the State as the sole decider of how things get spent. Then you can donate unrestricted to the State or just push for some taxes being raised.