From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:45:17 GMT

In article <92346.134257DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <PA146008.556.724089241@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
>(David Veal) says:
>>
>>In article <92346.095057DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>>>People keep claiming that private charity could get the job done, but they
>>>offer no evidence for this claim.  I wish someone would try and post this.
>>
>>       Please note the phrasing "practical alternative."  It is possible for
>>voluntary charity to not "get the job done," depending on how you define
>>"get the job done," because it's (get this) voluntary.
>>       Private charity is not a perfect option.  But because it is a
>>practical option, we should make it word rather than constantly bleat that
>>somebody, somewhere isn't suffering their fair share for the poor.
>
>Is that "make it work??"  Maybe if you could explain what you mean
>by "practical alternative" it would help.  

       "Practical alternative":  Alternative which can be made to function 
in the Real World.

>I took it to mean that
>private charity could replace the social service operations of
>government in a reasonable fashion, without the detrimental effects
>of big government and coercion, at the same or lower costs.

       Well, since at least some of the "social service" operations of the 
government I think we can do away with entirely, it isn't necessary that all 
of these be taken over privately.  Some of them should simply go away.  But 
that's a matter of differing definitions.

>If that's a reasonable interpretation,
>I'd like to see some proof of it.  Most of the private charities I know 
>about spend 25-40 percent of the monies collected on advertising and 
>administration.  Medicare spends less than 5 percent of total monies 
>collected on admin. costs.

       25 - 40 percent sounds about accurate for private charities.  Five 
percent for medicare doesn't sound like its even in the ballpark, 
unless they're doing something bizarre with the reporting, such as 
requiring the doctors to pay for paperwork.  

       Where exactly is this 5% figure from?

>>>I will note that I saw an interview on the news last night with a director
>>>from CARE (I think).  He was talking about a recent campaign they have
>>>been conducting for Somalia.  While he did not provide total expenses
>>>he did note that they had spent $100,000 on advertising.  He said this
>>>would be one of the most efficient and successful fund-raising efforts
>>>thay have had.  The total amount they expected to raise.....
>>>
>>>                     $400,000
>>>
>>>
>>>(less than $300,000 of which will go to Africa).
>>
>>       Private charity out of the United States isn't going to feed, clothe,
>>house, and educate the world.  We'll be doing great if and when we manage to
>>feed, clothe, house, and educate our country.  But very few of anybody's
>>government social programs feed, et al. people outside the country.
>
>You miss the point.  Twenty-five percent of monies collected going to
>administration and advertising stinks.  Prove to me that private charities
>could replace many of government's social services.

       To be honest, it doesn't sound like you have the slightest interest 
in being convinced.  And I'm not entirely sure where to start with 
evidence that you wouldn't just dismiss out of hand.

       But hell, at this point I'm not even gung-ho to eliminate government 
charities.  If they'd just stop adding more I'd be satisfied.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh