Against Charity (Doug Casey)
[I]f I come across a person who I have reason to believe is worthy of my charity and my trust, I might act individually.
But yes, when things get organized, they get bureaucratized.
It’s just the natural course of things; it seems almost universal that as organizations get older and more structured, they become counterproductive to their intended purposes.
Charity is especially prone to this problem because of the phony ethical notions that now pervade Western society.
It’s gotten worse over the last 100 years.
People have come to believe that an instrument of coercion, the state, has to take care of them.
Perversely, when the state engages in charity—which isn’t charity, because tax-supported giving is not voluntary—it discourages true charity.
People who have money taken from them by the taxman have less of it to give to those they might know who genuinely need help.
[....]
Let’s just say that your moral obligation to the rest of humanity—insofar as you have such an obligation—is to keep your capital intact.
First, that means to deny it to the state, which will very likely use it in a destructive way.
Second, to direct it to those who will use it to produce more—not to unproductive consumers.
Third, to take some personal responsibility, and do it yourself—don’t devolve it upon some unknown board of worthies who will have their own ideas about what to do with your money.
From 'Totally Incorrect: Conversations with Doug Casey (LFB)' by Louis James https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AZMKGE8/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_vKdAAbAPKG5EN
This is tough. I agree that large charities have problems but they also have strengths by being able to mobalize a large number of people. They are certainly not the most efficient use of money but they do a pretty good job. That is a general statement. Some charities are really good and some really bad. Until something better comes along I think this is what we are stuck with.