The blogger at Devil’s Kitchen has been doing fine work, as have others, in exposing “fake charities” – those organisations that while claiming to be autonomous, voluntary organisations, receive a substantial amount of funding from the taxpayer via grants and as a result, frequently take positions in terms of public policy that, unsurprisingly, fit in with the fashionable bromides of transnational progressivism, health fascism and environmentalism. The Fake Charities website does sterling work in listing those organisations that should be closely watched. The site is a great resource and well worth bookmarking.
I do not give a voluntary penny to any of them. An old girlfriend of mine used to work as a fund-raiser for the NSPCC. She told me that it was a bit like working for the government. The tragedy of all this is that charities, like other once-autonomous institutions drawn into the arms of the state, are valuable parts of a civil society. Opponents of liberalism will sometimes claim that we are “atomists” who have no interest in co-operative ventures. That is mischievious nonsense: a libertarian is in favour of, or at least tolerates, all forms of voluntary interaction and charitable, philanthropic activity is absolutely vital to this. Without a Welfare State to care for the inevitable casualties of life, such organisations are obviously important. In framing the case for moving towards a truly free society rather than the mess we have now, it is in fact particularly important to highlight the examples of where philanthropy, as properly understood, has made a positive difference to people’s lives. It is all of a piece with trying to set out positive, constructive examples of what a free society actually can look like, rather than just moaning about the situation we now find ourselves in.
Fakecharities.org is a great site. What is also needed though is an addition to the site with details for dunces like me on how to investigate these folks.
There is a related problem. Wasn’t it the last Conservative government who brought the charities in to be partners to the state?
The point being that many on the right still need to be convinced that charities should not act as the agents of the state.
TDK, indeed and so far as I can tell Call Me Dave is planning to inveigle charities further in the state apparatus by handing over some of the welfare system for them to administrate or be involved in or something. Which will be a disaster. IMV there’s only one thing worse than the state spending my money, and that’s the state giving my money to somebody else to spend.
Effectively, the whole anglosocialist apparat- charities, NGOs, quangos, unions, trade organisations etc are just part of the government- or the governance- now. Virtually all the charities of any note are effectively fakes. And the Tories certainly aren’t going to improve the situation.
This is the beauty of what the Left have achieved. The governance is mostly external to parliament, which just acts to enable the governance network, dutifully providing their enabling powers, passing laws they request, and so on. Doesn’t matter who gets elected, the progressive steamroller rolls on.
Ian B, indeed. And the sadness of it all is, that the Cameroons in the Tory Party probably don’t get the point about the need for charities/other voluntary bodies to be genuinely free-standing organisations.
Well said JP and IanB.
What I find irritating is the term “third sector” as if charities came after the State. The arrogance!
The best way the State can assist charities is to stop taxing income. Then people will decide what they spend their money on, including charitable giving without the State having to be involved and “approve” of who is “allowed” to be a charity. Case in point – Private Schools.
The trouble is that ‘charities’ are such useful tools for the state that cutting them off from the statists is nigh on impossible.
For a start, many of them are there to do ‘research’ or ‘studies’ that they then use to ‘pressure’ the government to do what the government wanted to do in the first place.
So when the elite want to do something ‘for the children’ for instance, you will find one ‘charity’ producing the research to justify it, another to applaud the government for accepting it, and a third bemoaning the fact that the government hasn’t gone far enough.
Then there’s the fact that there are lots of jobs in the charity sector. Now I’m not suggesting that friends, relatives and general hangers-on of the ministers concerned get these jobs handed out to them for services rendered. I’m not suggesting this since I haven’t done the research, but if someone cared to, it would be my bet that they might find this to be the case.
So it’s the perfect statist circle. Stealing my money to pay their pals in the ‘third sector’ to come up with more ways to spend my money and reduce my freedom.
SQOTD?
I always find it strangely satisfying to enter “£0” in the “how much money have you raised?” box on my London Marathon number each year (I qualify automatically for a place so don’t need to raise any).
Charities, as far as I can see, exist largely to provide jobs to people who are too sniffy and/or “idealistic” to join something as vulgar as the private sector, but are not bright enough to be human rights barristers.
Of the many “difference between liberals and conservatives” lines is this one, which is limited in scope but completely true as far as it goes: The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are generous with their own money and liberals are generous with somebody else’s.
The foundational problem as I see it is that in the current atmosphere, there is no distinction made between opposing government support of something and opposing that something itself. It is a corrosive notion in a free society that values limited government, but it has taken hold quite strongly.
That idea must be defeated first, then the rest will become easier because the debate will be more honest.
Wish that site included US information. Over here one of the larger problems is the amount of lobbying done by so-called non-profits. I’ve stopped giving to any that email me and tell me contact my congressperson to support this or that spending. Some of these are large and do good work but the fact that they see lobbying the government for more spending on stuff the government shouldn’t be spending on — well that ends it for me.
And tim maguire has also hit on a good point. Somehow as a society we’ve become confused into believing that if something is good to do, then the government should do it. That perception needs to change.
It is, of course, no accident that Comrade President Barack Obama and his friends are seeking to tax donations to charity.
And when asked about the harm this does to charities – reply that the charities can apply to the government for money.
The far left hate all the institutions of independent Civil Society – real (as opposed to state funded) charities included.
The idea that ordinary people can get together and do good themselves (as opposed to getting together to demand that the collective power does them good) inspires deep hatred in people like Barack Obama.
He really is an evil man – not just a man with some mistaken economic ideas.
Look at his decades in the Chicago machine.
Look at his voting record – and his bankground and activities.
This is not Denis K. – not some well meaning leftist who is horrified by corporate bailouts and other such.
Barack Obama is deep down bad – rotten to the core.
And the mainstream media and the “education system” back him.
Actually I am not angry about that – as it shows them for what they are.
And it proves I have not been paranoid about them all these years.