Termyn8or -> RE: Would you donate to this? (12/24/2009 10:13:36 PM)
|
In a word no. Discounting any trust issues, let's assume there is 100% accountability and you are fair and honest. I don't think the whole idea is structured quite right. I think when we the donors pull out of our pockets collectively, that power should be used for more than the betterment of one. I think we could make more difference by other actions, up to and including the hiring of lobbyists. Something like that could have a positive effect for many if not all. Purchasing power is not something to be abused. Unless this is a quite large operation I think it wise to forget about the really high hopes, such as grooming a future President or any other pie in the sky notions. But then people can do what they want with their money and I have no objection to helping people, I just do it more directly. First of all you cut out the middleman and it's cheaper and more effective. In this case if you want to donate the time and resources to set it up, that is likewise your perogative. The problem that I, among others that might prove to be a problem is in the choice of the recipient(gr). Perhaps the democratic process would be appropriate for such a project. Optimally this would entail that all donors can submit candidates for contention for the money. All donors would vote, and their vote weighed by their donation amount, or not........ that itself would be something to figure out in the beginning. Just because you can afford more your vote should have more weight ? That is something to decide up front for sure. However your plan in it's current form is not going to attract alot of donors. No matter what the money is used for people all have their own notion where it should go. Possibly the best attraction for possible donors would be the democratic selection of the recipient. What other charity offers that choice, or even a say in it ? There are many out there vying for charity dollars along with any other disposable income people may think they have. To compete you need an edge. The only edge I can see for something like this is what I just wrote. Present it as a different form of charity. Candidates may be known by their nominators, but that is reported and well known, there is no secret. Structured that way, I might even participate, and I now know who my nominee would be, my nextdoor neighbor. He has been a friend for along time, and is struggling. Ironically I have people who are living with me, I take care of that personally, but I would not nominate them. They, as I have put it straight to them, they have burned all the bridges back to anywhere they want to go. They fucked up. However my neighbor did not. He needs money for house taxes and a few repairs, some a bit pricey. But he still works, albeit in this economy for half of what he used to make but never stops trying. They took his license and what did he do ? He rode a bicycle almost thirty miles each way to and from work. You see, in my view the recipient must also be trustable, and as I have said, there are two components to trust. One is of course basic trust in that they don't take the money and run, or whatever in any case. But you also have to trust their judgement. I am reluctant to help people in certain ways when they have repeatedly blown it. It's just a waste. If nothing else, they must put the grant to good use. I would like to see external infuences that caused them to fail, or begin to fail. People who cause their own demise will simply do it again. I want my dollars well placed. And that is in the hands of those who need it, but they don't have to be living under a bridge. But think of it this way. Just because someone is not under the bridge yet does not mean they are not worthy of help. You can house a homeless person, or you help not create another homeless person, in the end the result is the same is it not ? I think no matter what, this will be more complex than meets the eye. T
|
|
|
|