If your company matches donations, take them up on that. That means for $1 pre-tax (~$0.60 out of your pocket) you can give $2.00 to an organization that could use the money. That’s almost 3.5x force multiplication.
Also I promise it will feel good, and if you choose a local organization that doesn’t have mega donors (not that the big ones are all bad) they will truly notice your help.
Which is not to say you shouldn't help people. It is to say that the best way to help may not be registered and legislated charity. Mutual aid is a powerful thing - you can enable communities around you to be self-determining, rather than funding a bunch of salaried assholes to decide what they need.
Go find a mutual aid organization near you. Set up a big chunky recurring contribution. And if you're feeling intrepid, get to know some of the people and learn how you can help out on the ground.
In terms of finances, the real money is in fundraising. From the perspective of the charity, spending $999 on fundraising to raise $1000 dollars in donations is a net positive and huge amounts of money are "wasted" on fundraising efforts. If you want a lucrative career in the industry, being a freelance fundraising consultant is definitely the way to go. You can ask for nearly as much as you can raise and you get none of the scrutiny the CEOs get.
The Effective Altruism movement aims to direct money towards these activities with maximum impact. But to do this they actually need charities to collect data to measure their impact, which I guess may require some degree of professionalism.
There are an awful lot of rubbish charities but there are at least a few worthwhile ones so it’s not an excuse for not donating.
Surely you can see that "get the best person you can for $40k" has limitations as a hiring strategy.
A charity that just passes money straight through by sending envelopes full of cash to a war torn country is much worse than one that spends a ton of money on analyzing first what the most effective way to help is.
Otherwise the FSFE when it's an option in Europe since their Public Money, Public Code campaign is great.
Well, this is just not true.
Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%)
1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&...
2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu...
3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...
Your US figure ([1]) doesn't say anything about value of time donated so I'd assume it is not included.
Finally, the metric where Netherlands and Switzerland come out on top in [3] is in size of philanthropic assets vs GDP. This is noteworthy for sure but is a an entirely different thing than amount of yearly donations.
I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...
Best case scenario would be where no charity is needed, am I wrong?
On the other hand there is competition between nonprofits, plus they are often multinational.
I find it interesting that some of the most efficient government organizations (like World Food Programme) actually operate as charities (in the sense that everyone can donate to them).
So I think charity will always have a role, both financially and socially.
Considering purchasing power parity GDP would be even better.
> more if you count donations of time, physical labor and material
This whole charity idea is stupid if you're a country like the US, it's like kicking someone in the balls then giving them an aspirin for the pain and bragging about how generous you are.
I've submitted a few episodes to HN in the past (with little pick-up). The issue of donor-induced bias and misdirection is a frequent one.
Unfortunately, both the podcast and its host, Amy Costello, seem to have gone dark as of this past December. I've written the organisation, the NonProfit Quarterly, several times, and made inquiries elsewhere, but have received no word on what's going on.
The back-catalogue remains available and excellent however.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/tiny-spark/
Let's take econ 101 and revealed preferences. It is obvious that if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks. Otherwise you would not do that. And there is zero difference on the mechanics there if you compare to buying a movie ticket. Watching the movie gives you more utility than what the ticket costs. So, from the point of view of the donor we can think charity nothing more, nothing less than entertainment, and the question is, why one type of entertainment is tax deductible while another is not?
If we compare these transactions not only from the donor's point of view, we notice a clear distinction in power balance between those. The movie ticket transaction is relatively power neutral. Both sides have roughly equal say in the contract, both are taking part of a balanced business transaction. Charity then, is far from being power neutral, the donor has all the power in their hands. Not exactly a reason for charity being the tax-subsidized transaction here.
But charity makes good things. Like... creating a job for a movie teather cashier is somehow not a good thing? Nope, not convincing either.
As said, I have a blind spot here. I find no serious reason why charity should be subsidized. Yes, it feels good and makes good, but so do normal business transactions. If you think that charity is somehow better way to organize social security for the poor than government-tax-mandated social security, think again. (hint: prisoners' dilemma) If you think that you would like to support poor voluntarily, but not by force, you do not understand (or want to understand) that that does not result to sufficient support for the poor.
The government is saying to the citizens, if you see a problem so pressing it motivates you to altruism, we'll trust that it was important enough that you don't need to pay taxes on that money.
I like it conceptually since central authorities tend to have lots of blind spots. Like a lot of white collar crime issues, enforcement of what rules there are is lacking.
Sounds like you failed econ 101.
If you only take the viewpoit of a sociopath, you will miss some crucial detail, like empathy, which is the reason people donate.
I donate because want to stave off ecosystem collapse, but you come across as the kind of person that would rather invest 2 billion in personal bunkers than 1 billion in ecosystem restoration, because the former is 'value' and the latter is 'entertainment'
In this case the donor gets his entertainment and good feelings and as a positive externality a child doesn't get malaria.
Graduate degrees, pollution, loud cars/motorcycles, ugly buildings, mountain climbing, alcohol, marijuana, fashion magazines. So many possibilities.
When Bill Gates or some other billionaire allocates some portion of his wealth to his foundation, this is tax he doesn't need to pay and can write off. The foundation needs to appear to be doing good, but it can also develop his other financial interests.
I think it's better thought of as tax efficient part of public relations spend.
From the economic perspective, If someone gives $100 to charity, and a gets a $20 tax deduction, this is a net positive. Ostensibly, the point of government is to help people, and the point of charities are to help people. In reality, Half of that $20 tax would have gone to building bombs, so it is more like $10 vs $100.
From the moral perspective, charitable donations are set apart from other transactions because there is no quid-pro-quo, so more good is done. When you buy a movie ticket, a significant portion of that goes creating the product you receive (paying the movie studio, building the theatre, paying investors). With a charitable donation, the idea is that that more good is done because you are forgoing receiving any goods or services.
I find that a very odd statement to make. It is a statement that actually denies that people can act charitably at all. It comes across to me as a statement routed in a complete lack of empathy.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point that actually less reliance on philanthropy and more tax funding of welfare and initiatives would be a benefit, just that I strongly disagree with how you get there, that all charity must be a utilitarian endeavour.
Let’s say that you give someone $100 so that they can feed their family. The good feeling you get, and the sense of justice, etc is worth $100 or more to you. Therefore, you got at least $100 utility out of it.
Maybe? That’s what I’m guessing the OP meant.
But charity became its own distorted industry.
I think it'd be an interesting experiment to celebrate the highest tax payers the same way we celebrate those in the Forbes 500 with magazine covers and the way non-profits celebrate their biggest donors with gala dinners.
Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.
I think it would lead to healthier discourse as the tax contributor would be effectively be saying - of all the philanthropic causes I could support, I am purposely choosing to give up that right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people.
As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years.
He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
- the loudest of society villify the rich regardless of whether they are fairly paying taxes or not
- a subset of rich laud each other for coming up with the most creative tax evasion schemes
Some sort of publisher should hold up the most honest, most successful tax patriots and put them up on a magazine cover.
It'd be important to have some separation of the recognition from the actual government (i.e. it should be a private publishing company) to avoid attempts to access government officials and to avoid it looking coerced.
It'd also be important to make it voluntary/opt-in as I'd imagine many would rather just be anonymous.
I might sound cynic, but personally I could only held up that belief, if I never open my eyes again and never open any newspaper anymore, or turn on the tv. Usually I read sentences like this in satire articles, but I think I understand the motivation behind it. Sometimes you have to give trust first, to make something work. I am just very sceptical in this case.
https://nautil.us/larry-david-and-the-game-theory-of-anonymo...
The opening call out is pretty great, too. Ever see the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry's big donation is upstaged by Ted's anonymous donation?
Visible philanthropy is not a simple system of rewards. It's much more interesting than that.
I think it'd still work - you'd just have to tweaked it a bit - could definitely have the list ordered with most patriotic "anonymous" tax contributors listed in order and then reward the first three non-anonymous highest tax contributors with the full 'bio'/backstory in the magazine spread.
If you want to throw money straight down the fucking drain, go for it. The federal budget is already not balanced. No matter what rich people donate extra, the money will be squandered exactly the same way it is today but you can’t even attach stipulations.
Statistically speaking, you money will just into the military.
I would much rather have the rich use their influence to push for good things the government doesn’t care about (hunger programs, drug rehab, housing, etc).
There are several causes I support; none of them are close to and just slightly more effective than giving that money to the government.
Tax is a side show here. The issue I found is when trying to find a good charity an overwhelming amount of the money is spent on "fund raising" and exactly what this article is talking about. I quit giving to charity besides the local food bank. Literally everything else seemed like a scam. The more the name of the charity pulls on the heart strings the better chance it is a scam too.
> Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.
This is irrelevant. Rich people already rule the world. If they want better PR they can just buy it.
You can worship rich people all you want, but it would be for your own pleasure and wouldn't be relevant to the billionaires or whoever it is that we're talking about.
Most of the comments here are more aligned with the problems of "Cancer Inc" or "Red Cross" sorts of non-profits, where the mission is real but the massive insititution is decades old and owns a lot of property and equipment, and the executive branch really is in a different world, and people are hired to do boring jobs.
Lastly, it is famously true that huge, huge groups are non-profits, where a lot of money changes hands.. and those kinds of setups are closed to your questions, e.g. hospitals and big league sports. ok one more - the "royalty" of those like the Bishop Museum or the Playboy Golf Championship in the 1980s, which both devolved into giant, serious scams where people actually, eventually went to jail. have fun with your non-profits! others did...
The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the federal government subsidizing high-tax jurisdictions at the expense of low-tax jurisdictions. The first seems far more defensible and in line with the federal government's mission[1], than some sort of mechanism to pad the finances of certain states. This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.
[1] and no, this argument doesn't work for the SALT deduction because state/local taxes aren't optional
So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.
You know what, I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them.
Enough theft from my pocket. I'll fund my fellow man. But to fund a man who calls himself my enemy and removes my freedom: it takes a Big Government fanatic to require that.
Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met.
I also oppose local tax deductions despite standing to benefit greatly.
With defense spending, pet projects, and incompetence, it is hard to make a case that they are on parity.
I get to avoid capital gains on the donation of appreciated assets on top of that.
For whom is the benefit only 20%?
the salt is called via a $
different political things, but the salt cap was a punitive thing purely for you to have resentment about where you live, it’s interesting that instead you got resentment for non profits
republicans want you to have resentment at high tax states run by democrats, so that you consider regime change in that state
Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.
The Prohibition Party is still around because of a trust that funds them indefinitely.
But nobody cares about the Prohibition Party.
Some ecclesiastical organizations have this sort of perpetual funding. Sometimes via taxes, and sometimes investments.
But it doesn’t make the organizations insanely powerful. The Catholic Church in Germany is hardly a political player.
Trinity Church in New York has a billion dollar endowment. They’re not big players in the US religious landscape.
Real power requires more than money.
It seems what it does is ensures some person 150 years from now will have a cushy job with little power or responsibility, but lots of cash.
and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"?
If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.
The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by relative participation rates.
It is good in theory, but does it work in practice though? For example, majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening. There are so many "think tanks" and non-profits whose sole job is to advocate shitty ideas of their ultra rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of.
Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.
That 99% compounds though. Sure, maybe you find someone pretty like-minded. 50 years from now, are they going to be able to find someone 50 years younger than them but just as like-minded? And their replacement 50 years on? Realistically you couldn't maintain any objective that was too far out of line with the general culture.
And the bylaws can force this too
Yeah, and I'm sure those research centers will be completely unbiased and unafraid to bite the hand that feeds them...
To me, that means an elected body that decides through representation what is the best use of funds. It does so with no direct oversight, or “unacceptable paternalism”.
Sounds an awful lot like a government, doesn’t it? How does a government raise funds? Through taxes (simplified view for the sake of argument. Ignore printing money and selling treasury bonds for a moment).
But this is how we function already. So in lieu of philanthropy, can we create a new class of voluntary tax? Or raise taxes on high income? Considering that philanthropy is a purely voluntary act - I think forcing anyone is against that spirit and a voluntary tax, or volunteering funding of govt projects could be the solution.
Having said that, I fail to see how this will not also get politicized and lead to greater influence for the donors.
I’m not sure if there’s a way to accomplish that while still keeping things voluntary, in the spirit of philanthropy.
The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High.
Meanwhile, the state of California just celebrated a record tax year collecting a hundred billion dollars (30%) over the budget, and is struggling to find programs to squander it on.
...And much isn't...
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-w...
Clement Attlee, 1920
We do more than try, we provide critical services to huge numbers of people. Nothing will ever be perfect, but if the standard is 100% or failure, then no point in getting out of bed in the morning.
But im not sure how that would negatively affect budgeting
english is beautiful
The issue is they pay their executives $$$$$ while insisting low level employees take much less than they'd make as government employees while feeling entitled to shape someone's career for the rest of their LIFE if they leave the organization on bad terms.
Someone told me "no one gets fired on K street". I did. I moved in with my parents, learned to code, and signed a lease in line with my budget on an apartment in my home county, where yet another nonprofit profited from my knowledge while abusing me.
Ex: look at page 7 here:
https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDT-2015-990-FINA...
Then look here:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...
The entitlement of these entities is astounding.
You can only repeat the same confidence tricks so many times before men with guns come into your house like it's Belfast in the 80s or you have civil unrest on an unprecedented scale.
I've interviewed places that went on to full on unionize, then applied again after the unionization thinking I could discard my previous extremely disrespectful experiences that were hand waved away, only to have people conduct the process like I'm trying to order a vodka mate at Waterfall[6].
(As in conducting the interview with dripping sarcasm and a tone like they're going to try to put a cigarette out on me, which is not something I want done, though thanks for the hole in my best black t-shirt because I decided to go to the club they didn't write about in LA Times or whatever.)
I'm gonna swing back to a research project I'm working on in a moment, but it says everything about thew state of nonprofits all the world over that when back before the 2020 election, I asked my bank for a safe deposit box and a funeral home for a pointer on someone who can draw up a will that it felt like the entire planet lost their minds. (They didn't help with either, since I'm not a boomer, and so I closed my account. Enjoy the bank run and stock crash, you rude little woman!)
The insurrection was illegal, and murder is bad, but unfortunately I think it took events like that, or the power failure in Texas[2] or the condo collapse in Florida[3] are what it took to teach folks that pairing no income tax at the state level with hatred of "feds" and sales tax will end with you sitting alone in your McMansion or condo, wondering if it will collapse in on you due to an extreme weather event, or a nuclear strike conducted by a rouge state you insisted via your purposefully terrible voting be handled with kid gloves[4][5].
At the end of the day, the world we are seeing on the news today is the one that folks from generations prior to mine (including GenX) very violently insisted on.
I'm on the autistic spectrum -- I know people sometimes say one thing and mean another, so all I can do is try to put enough information out there that people can try to make good decisions under uncertainty.
(I wrote the above while pounding espresso that I put on my Capital One[8] card, since based on my interactions with their employees I don't think they care if I pay my bill, and there's no cash in MY wallet.)
[1] https://gizmodo.com/google-funded-think-tank-fires-google-cr... [2] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968577281/what-went-wrong-wit... [3] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1031245430/surfside-condo-col... [4] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100547908/russia-ends-natura... [5] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1072385995/north-korea-is-tes... [6] http://water-gate.de/de/contact/location/location.html [7] I changed my SSID, you're not as smart as you think :-) [8] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/woman-accused-of...
First, the more appropriate comparison would be the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale which tops out at $226,300.
Additionally, a non-profit executive takes retirement out of their earnings of $400K, while the government employee's retirement is guaranteed and does not come out of their $226K.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
>First, the two pay scales you posted are not a complete picture. The CEO in the non-profit makes $397,684, while the top GS15 step 10 makes $176,300. First, the more appropriate comparison would be the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale which tops out at $226,300. Additionally, a non-profit executive takes retirement out of their earnings of $400K, while the government employee's retirement is guaranteed and does not come out of their $226K.
You're correct my reply was not completely accurate with regard to numbers, so thanks for that.
But, to be clear the issue is the CEO justified folks payrates (mostly attorneys recently out of law school from across the T14) based on what a JD would make on the GS scale[0], while conversely the executives, as you can see from the data, made more.
This was also a smaller nonprofit, I've met folks with similar salaries but much larger teams or orgs.
Meanwhile, here it is clearly stated that someone with "3 years of graduate-level education leading to a Ph.D. degree or Ph.D. degree or equivalent doctoral degree" should make GS-11 (not clear on what step):
https://www.generalschedule.org/articles/general-schedule-ed...
Also, to be CRYSTAL clear:
I also did not CHOOSE nonprofits.
It was my perception they refused to hire me because if things like very openly stating I would not be applying to the NSA because I was worried I'd be asked to engage in illegal activities, based on my readings on cases like Jewel v. NSA[2].
When I was charting career paths I also (verbally) expressed concern about scholarship for service -- that a president might institute a government shutdown or otherwise interfere with folks ability to fulfill the requirements, causing them to be forced to pay the loans bqack, which IIRC happened during the Trump administration:
https://www.cyberscoop.com/government-shutdown-cybersecurity...
(In fact, one the last decent contact I had in the federal government stopped speaking to me when I tried to clarify whay became of that fiasco, it's not in any publicly available news source I could find)
So from my perspective, by the time I was at Center for Democracy & Technology, we were in a "fall of the USSR" situation. I had to repeatedly tell people "this isn't high school" as I was stymied despite having more intelligence capabilities than some small countries.
That meant that absent a VERY compelling reason, if there is never a context where someone opposes me when I've done nothing my entire life but work as what only fairly recently has been termed a "public interest technologist", it makes me question people's integrity, especially paired with things like words and phrases from private conversations making their way into CDT whitepapers after my departure and after the new CEO refused to even interview me.
It is completely unacceptable that across two different leaders this pattern of gatekeeping access to employment has continued.
I emailed the dean at Georgetown, William Treanor, about the above mentioned plagiarism issue, but didn't get a substantive reply.
I am not a lawyer, but speaking as someone who has not crossed an international border since the Obama administration, it's my understanding espionage is a capital offense... so on a long enough timeline if I cannot understand why people are making hiring decisions, paired with rampant illegal behavior, paired with refusals to connect me with work or compensate me for past harms, then all I can do is openly muse what motivates folks as I read and respond to publicly available information.
For context, I currently reside in the City of Pittsburgh.
I am tired of writing out long paragraphs like the above.
The last time I put this much energy into a post on the internet, a crowd formed outside the Mayor's house, and we got a new one. Then the Boy Scouts went bankrupt, and Mike Doyle (the cult adjacent[1] congressman) decided not to run for another term.
In closing, I feel that I was underpaid, illegally fired, then subjected to electronic and physical attacks by members of so called civil society.
I encourage anyone who desires to, to read the above and reply.
I'm happy to have a discussion.
I will do my best to be honest and accurate, but it may "trigger" some folks who aren't used to having hard questions asked in a public forum.
Have a nice evening, and thanks again for those numbers, sincerely.
[0] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries... [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/13/frat-house-for... [2] https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewel.complaint.pdf
> If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules.
I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people prevent it from spreading further.
Which seems appropriate for this topic. But instead of diving into that, this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good because the obvious alternative, democratic governance is fundamentally broken.
I'll check out the book by Emma Saunders-Hastings, “Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality” as its arguments sound pretty sensible.
"The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.
I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad news for you but reallisticly speaking unless you are the unlikely strong outlier the average person is you (and me).
In contrast, a pure democracy would be open questions and elections to any adult who is a citizen, without algorithms and corporate motivation interceding. This would theoretically benefit the aggregate voter: the citizens who vote.
Which part is bad? The "government type stuff" or the "without democratic oversight"? I agree that billionaires fielding their own armies/police forces would be pretty bad, but what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools? If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
You don't get to be fabulously wealthy without some of the second order effects of your wealth accumulation being unsavory. Generally speaking, these people will do things like run out competition, foster massive economic inequality, and perpetuate labor abuses to pad their bottom line and then buy the indulgences by doing a cosmetically "good" bit of philanthropy. But they probably could have done more good by doing their day job in a less exploitative way.
That's what I took away from OP.
That's the problem. The public should define what "public good" means, not rich people. As inefficient as taxes/government is, at least the voters are theoretically in the driver's seat, and get to at least indirectly define public good through elected representatives. With philanthropy, we're simply letting a single wealthy demographic decide "this is public good, trust me bro", and the public can't vote out rich people if they disagree.
...that such organization replace the government in doing such services and they obviously run without democratic oversight
> If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
Do you have the power to control how millions are spent? To direct thousands of employees?
No - then it's the opposite of undemocratic. It's actually very good for society.
Erik Prince: founder of Blackwater, private mercenary army.
Betsy Devos: former education secretary and champion of charter schools
Both children of Edgar and Elsa Prince, Erik runs their charity:
The former is a consequence of the latter. At least in modern times. Also don't forget that our notional foundations for democracy are rooted in a slave-society. I don't know how that's 'fair' unless you disregard the slaves.
And of course most people have no business in running a government: most people have no experience governing! Most people are subjects in mini-dictatorships (employees of employers).
