this is a possibly dangerous view but id like to hear some feedback-

1.
charity as a concept is a very useful concept for the irish govt. Does anyone feel it odd that our childrens hospital, crumlin is so often fund raising? We pay our taxes- (i agree we pay low tax) so why is the hospital required to fund raise all year round. A few years back i helped raise a few thousand for the Crumlin charity, and i guess it goes towards something useful.

But should this not be taken care of by govt. It seems that the existence of charity allows for govt and indeed society to take a step back from responsibility for delivering basic services. Think of many of the functions of charities in this nation- homelessness, cancer, child protection, victims of crime, care of the elderly. Should not the govt be covering these as bare necessities- and staffing these services with appropriate professionals? Instead we are made to feel guilty for not donating to the many many charities.


So from an governmental point of view- charity allows govt to reduce services and hope that charity will take over. Look at the local action groups established where hospital services have being withdrawn in the northwest.


2.

Secondly from an economic theory point of view- until the recent crash- many on the right advocated the removal of public services- to be replaced by philanthrophy! Why was this popular with the right? First it meant lower taxes! Any donations were tax deductible. Gordon brown and george bush had publicly celebrated the rise of philanthropy as a more efficient delivery of services. However recent reports by the guardian have shown the level of philanthropy collapsing in both countries as the crisis deepened. Imagine if instead of social welfare we were relying on the likes of seanie fitz setting up a soup kitchen or building tenaments for the homeless on his land.

Look what happened during the famine when there was minimum govt intervention and a reliance on private charity. The popularity of philanthropy in the states, the worlds most unequal society, should serve as a warning to Ireland where in recent years the growth of the charity ball, public events where stars made donations, or the aportioning of fragments of huge inheritances to charity was applauded, rather then questioning the low rate of inheritance tax.

3.


My third critique is on what is known as the charity industry. For this i would highlight two individuals. John O' Shea and Fergus Finlay. Some people spend a career moving from one charity to another, often to whichever charity is at that time in vogue.


It tells alot about a society , by which charities do well. In the U.S, the most successful organisations are the ones that encourage self help, or pulling yourself up by the boot straps. In the middle east- it is education and the spread of religious organisations. Ireland too had its missionaries . And trocaire. Note too the prominence of famine and poverty alleivance. Nowadays, befitting our catholic culture, the protection of children, family issues are prominent. The problem is that some issues can become fashionable. Lately its cancer, due in part to the jade effect. But in consequence, Africa is suffering- as are womens organisations. And then one form of cancer can trump another. Note the success of the pink industry- breast cancer- which is highly associated with women. For male sufferers of breast cancer, how do they fit in to this highly feminised image? Colon cancer is not as glamorous- and obviously does not have fashion lines and colourful ribbons.

From a personal point of view- I'im just recovering from a rare blood cancer after a years treatment. Now i always donated to charities in the past. But here is the bite. During my own treatment, none of the cancer charity services were needed. Any information is discoverable on internet info sites, or chat rooms where other patients share their knowledge. Alot of staff at certain charities - not all- have not got the disease- and though of course they are helpful and knowledgeable- they often cant have the understanding of a fellow sufferer. I acknowledge that they do provide night nurses and a hospice service. But as above- shouldnt this be provided by the state. I just found that as great as these charities are in theory- and the staff are no doubt fantastic- i did not need them. But ill be careful here- they do need us.
4.


Finally- there is the issue of delivery. I had a direct debit once- to a charity. The question arises as to what per centage is spent at where it was intended by the donator. A table of per centage delivery should be produced, highlighting charities with low admin and entertainment costs. I think such a table should be publically available every year. And be independently verified. We have all seen the number of paid agents who aggresively sell their charity on the streets or calling door to door.

On a side note- I acknowledge that the act of charity in itself has some sort of psychological benefit. For the giver, the charity worker, and im not so sure for the receiver. Instead I think we should feel that way about paying taxes- as they provide a similar service. But people feel fine to publicly celebrate a donation- ie a wealthy function - as seen in the sunday independent gossip pages- and in the same paper complain of punitive taxes. Without realising they are two roads to the one destination. Think of Bono. Think of the penny apples dude. Anyway. Thats my stream of consciousness on paper.

__________________
this machine kills fascists...