The Case Against Charity

I recognize that charity does good, and I think we can all see some of its positive effects. The part I don't hear in any discussion is the attendant negative, where charity causes harm or gets in the way of greater positive change. I will be using the term "mendicant" only because I like the sound and broad applicability, not because it is proper or best; I prefer it to 'poor', 'beggar', 'of modest means', or any number of synonyms or euphemism.

If two acquaintances meet and one who cannot afford it asks the other to pay for the meal, that's considered rude and the mendicant will be told so in a manner either large or small. When the same two people meet and have equal means to pay for the meal, often one will offer to pay for the other without prompting or judgment. The only thing different in this example is how able both are to afford the meal. The absurdity is that paying for the other is acceptable when there is no need or request. This situation seems to put the value on perceived status rather than the inherent worth of the person.

Then comes the case of giving to a mendicant on the street. The scenario seems straightforward: here is someone in need, and I have the ability to help with minimal effort/impact to myself, so I'll pitch some coins into their cup. However, not everyone who can contribute does so; again, there are judgements involved and different factors to consider. These may include one's sense of security, mood, visibility of the act of giving, having already given recently, if this mendicant has money in their cup, how long they have been in this same spot, and more. Society expects that the act of giving/helping is an individual choice, so that each contribution is not coerced, while at the same time leaving the decision (and potentially someone's life) totally to the caprice of various strangers. None of which is connected to the needs of the mendicant. There is no way to determine, in the context given, whether the donations are needed, suitable, adequate, or effective. This begins to demonstrate an inherent flaw in the current system of charity.

Another scenario is the "donation/resale center". This is a place where people with means can give items they don't need to people who do. It could be directly, with the items provided to the mendicant, or a larger operation that sells the donations to "give the proceeds to those in need". One thing that seems to appeal to those donating is that it's a more sterile and removed process. One never need to even see the unappealing mendicant, but simply drop items off at a convenient, aesthetically pleasing, well-lit location. This begins to show other issues with the charity system: since we rely on staff to do all the work, it is susceptible to various abuses. From embezzlement and graft to extortion of vulnerable persons and outright fraud. I'm not saying these things are common, just that there is no way of knowing with the current system. I believe that most workers in this field have noble intentions and wouldn't think of abusing their position. However, there is no oversight outside of each company/corporation/foundation. The closest thing would be a complaint to a government agency that oversees taxation, labor practices, or possibly business practices. I'm looking at you, Cancer Fund.

Finally, the establishment of a charity for a particular cause, such as an under-studied disease or other specific need (domestic violence or animal shelter). Here we can have specific individuals who have enough passion, or money/influence, to work towards change in a special area; often this will be a Foundation. Many times I have heard the founder or most well-known proponent for an organization talk about a personal impact; they had a friend or family member effected, driving them to take action. Noble, but so random and narrow to be laughable. This model also demonstrates an underlying inequity: who establishes and contributes to such charities, and therefore decides what is a "worthy cause"? I put this in scare quotes because - again - every individual is inherently worthy. That cannot be otherwise, else we risk the other-ing that leads to sanctioned and targeted neglect, killing, and even genocide. I may seem to digress, yet this is an important point in the discussion. By making certain individuals (be they mendicant, or person of color, or differing sexuality/gender than oneself, or religious affiliation) other we take away some of their power because we consider them to no longer have the same status as we do. This is easily seen when discussing mendicants, just notice your own reaction when hearing "vagrant", "bum", or "beggar". Returning to the point here, consider that impact on how charities could select only certain individuals to assist, while leaving others without. In order to receive what a mendicant needs, they need to conform to some established criteria and be an acceptable case - not a "lost cause". Those in power continue to determine how "worthy" someone is and whether they receive aid, directly and indirectly, by tying support to metrics established by those in power. For example, let's say an orphanage receives funding from a religious group. That funding could be limited to helping people the religious group deems 'worthy' and not for helping "unrepentant sinners". I say this demonstrates the core of unhealthy power dynamics: that one would consider a mendicant to not have the exact same rights or is incapable of having them.

This leads to another point, one central to helping others, which is that of self-determination and empowerment. When I give something to another person, it makes a difference whether they "earned" it or not; this can be seen in the difference between a busker and a mendicant. Giving to someone who is sitting passively with a cup feels different than giving to a performer-this is true on both parts. When a busker performs, they are demonstrating a skill and pride in their abilities. Contrast this with a mendicant who simply asks for others to act on their behalf. I am exclusively using this to demonstrate how an active or passive part in ones' own life changes more than having a single meal; this leaves aside ability/capacity, for example. The notion of autonomy is central to mental health and recovery. Think of times when you may have felt helpless or taken advantage of and get an idea of how important this can be. When that state becomes typical or standard, self-esteem and even hope are lost.

Finally, I will mention another point from a mental health view. A number of charitable organizations have taken to providing impact statements, documents that demonstrate action on the factors mentioned above. This is the start of accountability. However, when services/items provided are not adequate the assumptions seem to be 'they got something, that is all that matters', 'we can't do enough with our current budget/we need more to do more', or 'this is not meant to actually solve the issue, we are only providing enough to keep mendicants out of the way'. Harm reduction is important, and I do not intend to dismiss this aspect. It is simply that when we forego solutions we are not reducing but instead prolonging the harm; what sense is there in treating a condition instead of curing it?

The points so far: the focus on perceived status/value of mendicants, the random nature of giving that is not tied to outcomes, continued dis-empowerment of mendicants, lack of accountability, and vagaries of what cause is recognized as needing. My intention is to demonstrate how the underlying truth of our current system of charity is control. It is, in fact, an expansion of the Capitalist System that forces individuals to conform to the demands of those with money/power. This ranges from whether one gives to a mendicant on the street (act nice to the passers-by to get money to survive) to establishing a foundation (fill out these forms to apply for benefits...to survive).

"Charity" comforts us that we are 'doing something' instead of recognizing how backwards and broken the system is. Rather than fooling ourselves this way, it is time to analyze and address improvements to this system. The real value must be placed on choice and empowerment for the mendicants, with the end goal being the ability to dig oneself out of a difficult circumstance.

Why There Is No "Right to Privacy"

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” The Israeli Supreme Court Privacy Protection Act of 1981, Section 2 uses words like "harass" and "embarrass". These subjective terms illustrate the transient and variable nature of the discussion and concept of "privacy", as explicated in the following point:

"Another characteristic of the right to privacy which contributes to the difficulty in defining it is the fact the right to privacy is subjective in nature, culturally dependant, and is derived from the expectations of the society in a certain period of time. Therefore, privacy has been given different meanings over the years, being influenced by political, social and economic changes and by technological developments."[sic]. Yael Onn et.al., Privacy in the Digital Environment (Haifa Center of Law & Technology, Niva Elkin-Koren, Michael Birnhack, eds., 2005).

In the United States, there exists an explicit right to security in person and possessions, as laid out in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of this nation. It allows for legal search and seizure, meaning the outlined right is limited and readily circumvented through legal channels. This is why police are required to obtain a warrant to search a person or place: it supersedes the U.S. Constitutional right in cases where a judge finds the need. Thereby citizens only have as much security as allowed by laws that are interpreted by judges.

However, I am not an attorney and this not legal advice; I am merely outlining a few points briefly.


I propose that what is actually being discussed, at least in public discourse, is not privacy. Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems there are a number of different terms or ideas brought up in this discussion: privacy, secrecy, and security. Each of these may sound very similar, or even synonymous. If they all mean about the same thing, then what is the difference and why is there such argument over this topic? To reach those answers, we'll take a look at each concept shortly.

First, the much-lauded 'privacy'. When your someone read your diary, you probably screamed something about "invasion of privacy". This example indicates that there are certain parts of my life that are public, and others are not. Aside from being the opposite of private, what is public? It means "open to all" or "accessible to any individual." Public spaces are open and available to anyone who wants to be there. This is different from 'private property', where one needs to obtain permission to enter. This is analogous to 'public and private lives or information', where only certain parts are open to anyone. Essentially, we can define privacy as "the ability to choose what becomes known to whom".

Next, the idea of secrecy. This is information kept from the knowledge of others, or of certain people. This is getting a bit deeper, as secret has a connotation of confiding and/or trust. This seems a more personal choice, as many things are public by default or by law. A secret is something private that even those closest to me may not know; in a way, another layer of privacy.

Then, we come to security. This holds the other terms, in a sense. To be secure is to be safe; in this case, safe from the possibility of having privacy or secrecy taken away. This can be thought of as freedom from worry or threat of a breach in privacy. In this, we have the heart of the public discussion: individuals are worried (their security is threatened) that information about them that they considered confidential (private) is being given to others they did not agree to (sharing what was supposed to be secret).

In no way are these venues (social media, for example) clearly and solely defined as public or private. One may utilize "privacy settings" to declare one's preferences, but that only applies to the information one deliberately supplies, such as pictures and words. Behind the scenes, these platforms are collecting information on users that is not widely acknowledged: searches, purchases, connections to other users, demographics, etc. This is all used to 'target ads', meaning if I bought baby stuff recently that I may see more of those types of items; this is why Amazon.com seems so convenient, because it will suggest things that go with what I've already purchased and - even more broadly - what other people with similar 'profiles' have bought. None of this is entirely new, as TV (and before that, radio) was seen as a means for companies to advertise/sell their products to audiences. Certainly, television is a medium for ads and sellers pay money for advertising time during TV programs; many websites contain ads in a similar fashion, and both use those "ad revenues" to pay for keeping the TV station or website going. What is new is the ability to target ads even more specifically, based on the information collected by these websites. In addition, one has no control over how all that information gets collected, used, or distributed.

What this indicates to me is that the present-day talk about "privacy" is really a confrontation about ownership. If companies can collect information about me and then sell that data, it is just about who has a right to ownership and ability to sell information about 'me'.  Are those interests, preferences, and purchase histories my property (as they are inherently a part of me), or do they belong to the owners of websites I use to engage my interests? What we need is not necessarily a "right to privacy" as much as definition of personal information ownership. Once that is established, since ownership of personal property (even intellectual property) is clearly and legally laid out, we can settle the debate over "privacy" in this instance.

I Take Responsibility for Trump

I did not take seriously the possibility of someone so obviously unfit, unqualified, and unbelievable. I dismissed out of hand, denied with disdain, and scoffed with self-satisfaction. I did not consider for a moment that a great number of people could be swayed by their own disaffected frustration with the way things are. I was as lulled into complacency as so many privileged citizens have been. It is still unthinkable to me that this terrible individual had a chance of being given such a position. He is so demonstrably incapable of the dignity, restraint, and consideration required to be a leader. I look at him still and see the opposite of nearly all attributes that make a person fit for an elected office, let alone one at such a level. I put his chances of success on par with the possibility of Mickey Mouse being elected.

To be clear, these are not excuses. I am not asking for mercy for my error, and I fully recognize that I will be paying a price for my pride. No, this is to explicate my own responsibility and demonstrate how I missed all the opportunities to prevent this travesty. Instead, I should have been making efforts to talk with those individuals who were accepting and supporting the messages that Trump-the-candidate was spouting. It is not in my power to change DNC/RNC policies, I cannot lobby or buy media time, nor can I influence large number of people at rallies. However, I can reach out and build relationships with those who believe differently than I do.

In this way, most of all, is how I failed. I believe it is because we don't have good relations and strong, mutual respect for "others" that people like Trump succeed. Those "divisions" allow us to be steered like cattle by persuasive personalities. I use scare quotes because those words are artificial constructs and the emphasis denotes how they don't fit in reality. Lately, and with tremendous effort, I have begun looking for positive outcomes. In this case I have hopes that there may be some yet.

I cannot ignore this situation, and hope that no one else is able to, as well. I have been shaken from my complacency, and I hope that everyone else is also. I realize that things can truly be worse, and believe that others want that not to happen. We can come together, and need to more than ever.

Gaming for Those Who Do Not Game

I propose that social media are MMORPGs for non-gamers. What is a Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG)? People think of World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and others [see Wikipedia]. Essentially, it is an online game environment with artificial rules and imposed goals. Create an avatar, interact with others inside the game environment, and collect items and experience that demonstrate ones' coolness. People complete in-game actions together and can make real-life friends; others join to enjoy time with friends they already know and bond more.

What is social media? An artificial environment where people create profiles that reflect what they wish for themselves, post only what appeals, mirrors the experiences that others will enjoy or envy, and has pluses and minuses (votes) to demonstrate ones' status. Instead of prehistoric, futuristic, or fantastic warriors or wizards, people choose from the 'perfect spouse', 'renegade', or 'enviable go-getter' roles. These take practice as the rules are not clear at first; the longer someone plays the social media game, the better they are able to do it. Again, some join and meet up with others in-game; some join because they know people who already participate.

This is not just an amusing example of unconventional comparison. I think this is important to recognize these parallels because they are both games. Only one of the categories, however, is recognized as a "frivolous game", even though they both are. Some people, in both camps, take it seriously, and create real-world consequences for themselves and others. I think that adjusting how social media is perceived could relieve the pressure that participants can feel. It's possible that letting things be what they are instead of making them more important will allow us to focus on what truly matters.

Another Try

There is an old idea expressed in a contemporary manner: "Do, or do not, there is no 'try'." You may recognize the words of Yoda here (from the original Star Wars movies). I have adopted this idea for a variety of reasons, the main of which is the notion that I want to give my all to what I do.

When using "try", the focus is on the operative word of the sentence and what that word means. Therefore, rather than saying I will fix a car or clean dishes, it's about how I will "try". Instead of expressing clearly what I want as the outcome, I water it down. I'm not 'going to get my homework done', I'm just going to do what I want and the rest will wait. I'll 'try' to make it on time, 'try' to be nice, or 'try' to help someone. In the end, it doesn't matter whether I actually succeed or help, just that I've 'tried'. As long as I even thought about doing the thing, it can count as a try. As long as I set the bar to that level, I barely even need take action.

This pattern admits fear (possibly an incapacitating subconscious fear) of failure or commitment. Instead of definitely stating to another person that I will do this thing, and accept the consequences of not doing it, I will let myself "off the hook" by only setting the expectation of 'trying'. I don't recall anyone saying they would "try to go to the store' or 'try to buy groceries", they just say "I'm going to the store." The point being, if it's commonplace, we feel comfortable fully committing to 'doing'. However, when it requires effort or is unusual, we resort to 'trying'. I recognize that I'm not doing the thing as well as a professional; every skill takes practice. However, part of learning to ride a bike is falling off.

Finally, part of this is about clarity and direct communication. I see using 'try' as a way to avoid saying "no". This can be a conflict-avoidance technique, where I risk discomfiting another. I'm not advocating for conflict-seeking, rather that we and others accept and navigate rejection. By claiming that I will fulfill a request ("I'll try"), I falsely let the other person believe that it will be done. I know I don't have the time, but I want to please the other person, and so I say the words. However, at some point the work has to be done, and they've relied on me and no one else to accomplish it. Because I only committed to "trying", I can claim that I fulfilled my end of the bargain, even though the other person still needs their task done. They have less time to find this other helper, and likely will pay a higher price in some way for my delaying them. If I had been upfront at first, and said "no", they could have found someone else immediately.

There is nothing wrong with being unwilling or unable to do something. There is something undesirable about misrepresenting my intentions.