Charitable giving should be made illegal
By charitable giving I mean the donation of money, gifts or resources that would allow the continued survival and flourishing of an entity (human, animal, organization etc.) that wouldn’t otherwise survive in an unfettered free market.
The invisible hand of the free market is the only just way to distribute resources, and charity disrupts this natural process and creates inefficiency. It either creates dependency or it allows unfit entities to exist and this lowers the overall utility of a society and this ultimately leads to stagnation and socialistic values which in turn may lead to a diminishment in entrepreneurship and human excellence which ultimately perpetuates an ugliness, a poverty of spirit which drains the very joy out of life.
17 comments
Right, so you don't mind being left to rot when you're too old to work? And you don't mind it when you lose your job because the boss decided a robot could do the job more efficiently than you without having to be paid? Or because it's cheaper to outsource to China?
Or didn't you think of that?
„The invisible hand of the free market“ is the capitalist version of „god works in mysterious ways“. It is and was usually invoked when someone pointed out that capitalism will do something bad for example „capitalism will get more money in the hands of a few“ „No no you see the invisible hand of the free market will fix it“
Still I am with you on this but for totally different reasons: Charitable spending is tax deductible and honesty the rich should not be able to decide for what their tax money is used (at least not more than the rest of us) so it undermines the whole idea of tax and wellfare since it becomes more controlled by big spenders while the state can not use the money for sensible things in an orderly fashion.
Way more reasonable would be a sensible taxation policy world wide which would stop rich people paying 0.1% tax
"By charitable giving I mean the donation of money, gifts or resources that would allow the continued survival and flourishing of an entity"
So, no bailouts. If a company or an industry fails, that's great. WOrkers move on, owners go poor.
No tax incentives. Either your city/state is a good place for Amazon or Ford to build a facility, or it isn't, they have to pay the same as anyone else. Same for expansion teams. No gifts to woo them to your district.
And if you're, like, two days away from retirement when you break your leg or something else prevents you from finishing? Then get an old horse doctor to just shoot you.
Reddit has removed the original submission:
Thank you for submitting to r/unpopularopinion, /u/Icy-Flamingo-9693. Your post, Charitable giving should be made illegal, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts.
However, a review of Icy-Flamingo-9693’s other contributions show that he(she/it is indeed a stone age ableist.
Givable chariting would be made illegal
By givable chariting I mean the reorganization of money, gifts or sources that should allow the noded survival and flourishing of an entity (human, animal, continuation etc.) that wouldn’t otherwise survive in an unfettered feet marker.
The invisible hand of the feet marker just is the only way to redistribute sources and charity disrupts this natural process and creates inefficiency. It either creates utility or it allows fit entities to unexist and this lowers the overall dependency of a society and this ultimately leads to social stations and dicta gin value which in turn may lead to a diminishment in ship entrepreneurs and ultimate excellence which humanly perpetuates a poverty, an ugliness of spirit which rains the very joy out of life.
So many retail stores donate end of line/unsold sale stock to charity shops because it's tax deductible for the former, the latter get free new stock, and people who buy such get something useful for less than what the former charged - especially Hull's Dove House Hospice shops as they like a quick turnover - and the latter get money going to their good causes. It's a rare example of a win-win-win scenario.
For the former, the government ensured that incentive via legislation. For the likes of the latter, it was my previous MP John Prescott who introduced for debate in Parliament the concept of charity shops selling donated secondhand electrical goods; it was debated upon, and it was decided that as long as said donated items were tested before sale and said charity shops gave a minimum 30-day guarantee, it became law. It was Hull's Dove House Hospice who pioneered this, seeing as the husband of one of that charity's residents said he - who was also an electrical engineer by trade - would test any donated items for them for free because they'd looked after her so well.
Charities have tax exemption status, just like religions. Some churches even have charity shops: my best friend frequents the one in his locale. Matthew 25:34-40. Legislation. Especially that from governments supported by businesses .
That key word: Legislation.
It's not just "Olympus Has Fallen" that you're gonna have to make into a documentary, so good luck with that.
'Opinions' not required: or allowed.
How unpopular is that fact for you ...?!
The invisible hand of the free market is the only just way to distribute resources, and charity disrupts this natural process and creates inefficiency. It either creates dependency or it allows unfit entities to exist and this lowers the overall utility of a society and this ultimately leads to stagnation and socialistic values which in turn may lead to a diminishment in entrepreneurship and human excellence which ultimately perpetuates an ugliness, a poverty of spirit which drains the very joy out of life.
How could a society solely concerned with utility, monetary value and economic efficiency be anything but stagnant and ugly and joyless?
Also, any attempt to estimate value is necessarily based on limited knowledge. There is much that may turn out to have useful applications, but that potential is not apparent at all now. It would be rather bad if it turns out that the solution to an unforseeable problem turns out to be something now lost forever because the plutocracy was not interested in it.
So even in your own terrible psychopathic worldview, you are wrong.
@Bastethotep #96076
I have a hunch that to them, monetary value, or rather net worth, is The One True Font of Joy. The trick is that they don’t see Joy as consisting of anything except the euphoria of a power high.
I’d not be surprised if they think that anyone , great or small, being happy means they bested someone or something (e.g. adversity).
You moron, helping weaker members of a society is inbuilt in mankind.
And things such as art and science always have been funded through donations.
I just heard someone say that half of the homeless in this counter are orphans that aged out of the foster care network. And were dumped on the streets, with no family to fall back on. No help until they could ‘get on their feet.’
So, WE as a collective, failed them.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
