[krzysiek]

Honestly I believe that the other way around would be way better. There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way governments work, plus they operate like monopolies.

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).

[suture]

I think you are very much wrong when talking about efficiencies. There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.

[BobbyJo]

> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.

I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely?

The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem.

[maccard]

I'm definitely in the pro-government-involvement camp but

> There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale.

This is just false. Literally right now we have the case where food banks are filling in the gaps of the UK government at a national scale.

[munificent]

> There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way governments work,

There are plenty of inefficiencies in businesses too. I don't understand how anyone who has ever worked for a small or medium-sized company can complain about government waste. Almost every job I've had has been just riddled with ludicrous inefficiencies.

> plus they operate like monopolies.

Every philanthropist has a monopoly on the use of their funds.

At least with tax-supported government programs, voters have representation on how those funds are used.

[ChrisLomont]

>Every philanthropist has a monopoly on the use of their funds.

And there are lots of them, not operating all under one central control, so they are likely to help local needs, compete in other spaces, and spread the effects.

> At least with tax-supported government programs, voters have representation on how those funds are used.

And then those funds are mostly sent to a big few items taxpayers hear about and not so much to any other needs.

Voters also have representation on how charity funds are spent, since voters are the people making donations. If anything, this means your funds target what you want instead of what others want you to spend on.