From: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: libertarianism
Date: 27 Sep 1992 01:09:37 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: alt
Reply-To: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <LGOLD.92Sep21142229@callahans.Cadence.COM>, lgold@callahans.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
>"There ARE charities run by mostly volunteers.

I realize that.  There are also some organizations which, though not primarily
charitable, DO have some programs that are charitable.

>I help crochet afghans
>for a homeless shelter that barely pays its workers enough to live on.
>There's a battered women's hotline that pays its employees VERY little
>and has lots of volunteers helping out.

These are examples of the former.

>"Ralph Nader lives on a shoestring budget, as do all his employees.   

What has Ralph Nader got to do with charity?  Unless you consider giving jobs
to overepaid federal regulators to be charity.  Hmmm.  Maybe it is.

>"Then, of course, are charities where you might not WANT someone who's
>paid less than you.  Any of the medical research ones are bound to pay
>doctors and lab technicians more than you make; this attracts the best
>personnel.

Again, you're not talking about a charity here.  You're talking about medical
research.  I pointed out that I *AM* willing to donate money to research
programs that I think will be beneficial.

>"MY rule of thumb is I'll help any legitimate cause which
>
>a) is trying to cure a disease,

This I don't consider to be a charity.  It's a research program (unless they've
already found a cure and are trying to distribute it, in which its a public
health program).

>   or is trying to improve life for
>   people (this includes everything from hospice programs to ecology)
>b) isn't pushy or rude about how you can contribute
>c) doesn't force a set of beliefs on its beneficiaries (for example,
>   I won't give to missionary-type charities because I strongly object
>   to people having to put up with preaching if they want to receive
>   material help), and

Actually, I don't object to the idea of people having to put up with the
preaching.  If the preaching happened to be something with which I agreed, I'd
gladly donate to such an organization.  Listening to a sermon, for example, is
a small price to pay for a meal.  Remember "City on the Edge of Forever"?

>d) won't put my contributions where I don't want them.

Now, this last is interesting.

>"The United Way strikes out on b) and d).  They'll give your money to a
>blanket group of charities, some of which push religious beliefs
>contrary to mine.  Many workplaces have ostracized people for not
>giving to the United Way.

Actually, if you believe the claims of United Way, you can now specify specific
charities to which your money will or will not go.  Of course, when you donate
your money earmarked for a particular charity, it just means that they take
away some non-earmarked money that would otherwise gone to that charity, and
instead give it to one of the charities you said you didn't want your money to
go to.  Isn't accounting wonderful?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This text
is included
to satisfy
the obnoxious new
software recently
installed on my
NNTP server