6th September 2005, 10:24 AM
It would seem you actually think donating the money is out and out useless.
Maybe I am ignorant of something here (wouldn't be the first time, poor buffalo...), but is the government really fully capable of aiding all these people without any sort of negative consequences? While they can do a lot, aren't they limited? I'm not donating the money in the hopes they will use it to buy helicopters and rescue people. I donate with the hopes that the money will be used to help people rebuild their homes. Insurance money will play a part, and the government can give money towards this as well, but it may not be wise to put the country into even further debt if we can avoid it.
Do you truly believe a donation to be utterly worthless? Is everything that this money would go to something they are going to get anyway?
I submit that just because someone is already doing something doesn't mean they can't use our help, but I may be ignorant of exactly how much capability the government has. Is this whole "national debt" thing just an illusion and ultimately meaningless?
Okay, that said, people are going to ask if you would like to donate. You are free to say no. If they hound you beyond that, you are fully in your rights to demand they stop. However, they have every right to just ask if you would like to donate. It's how they get those donations, asking.
But, again, I have never took the time to really take a long hard skeptical look at the nature of fund raising for those in such situations. I have taken such a look at the organizations in seeing how much of the money actually gets to those in need, but not at the actual act itself. I will submit that in cases like poverty stricken countries full of starving people, agricultural reform is actually of the highest priority, but that doesn't mean that, in the mean time, a handout won't do some small good.
Maybe I am ignorant of something here (wouldn't be the first time, poor buffalo...), but is the government really fully capable of aiding all these people without any sort of negative consequences? While they can do a lot, aren't they limited? I'm not donating the money in the hopes they will use it to buy helicopters and rescue people. I donate with the hopes that the money will be used to help people rebuild their homes. Insurance money will play a part, and the government can give money towards this as well, but it may not be wise to put the country into even further debt if we can avoid it.
Do you truly believe a donation to be utterly worthless? Is everything that this money would go to something they are going to get anyway?
I submit that just because someone is already doing something doesn't mean they can't use our help, but I may be ignorant of exactly how much capability the government has. Is this whole "national debt" thing just an illusion and ultimately meaningless?
Okay, that said, people are going to ask if you would like to donate. You are free to say no. If they hound you beyond that, you are fully in your rights to demand they stop. However, they have every right to just ask if you would like to donate. It's how they get those donations, asking.
But, again, I have never took the time to really take a long hard skeptical look at the nature of fund raising for those in such situations. I have taken such a look at the organizations in seeing how much of the money actually gets to those in need, but not at the actual act itself. I will submit that in cases like poverty stricken countries full of starving people, agricultural reform is actually of the highest priority, but that doesn't mean that, in the mean time, a handout won't do some small good.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)