Through my LinkedIn feed, I read a Stanford News article on philanthropy written by Melissa De Witte (December 3, 2018). The article relates to a book written by a Stanford Political Science faculty. I thought I would comment since we are trying to apply YCISL thinking to philanthropy.
First, I believe we have different definitions of philanthropy. The book author seems to be referring only to monetary donations that qualify for the benefits of tax deduction. That’s like looking at someone’s face and picking something to be critical of – even if we generally do not make a fuss over the whole. We should be praising any philanthropy on any scale and of any shape. In YCISL, we wish for philanthropy to be encouraged and be a part of natural human behavior. As is our youth program style, we view philanthropy without monetary aspect and instead look to grow it with intrinsic motivation. That makes it accessible and a key component of personal development.
“But philanthropy is generously tax subsidized…” You say “subsidized”, I say benefitting society. Remember that deductible donations can only go to qualifying organizations and so such money flow is just cutting out the middle man (and we know that is a good thing where it is important to make money work efficiently).
“Philanthropy often comes with strings attached.” That’s if you only know philanthropy as what makes news headlines. The word “often” should be replaced with “occasionally” or “sometimes” because my view is that of most people engaging in (monetary value) philanthropy, but in modest amounts – and they are definitely without strings. Think of the Salvation Army Kettle (and similar set-ups) or used clothing donations or school fundraisers or even freeway off-ramp panhandlers. In terms of frequency and emotional payback, I think the no-strings attached philanthropy dominates.
The bottom line question is “Would society be better off without philanthropy (as it is today)?” My “glass half full” answer is “obviously!”