Community based charity

The "cover story" for NPR's All Things Considered this evening was about giving, and in particular giving to help others after a disaster, such as Sandy. Dan Shea, managing editor of New Orleans Times-Picayune during and after Katrina, notes that we as a nation are pretty good about responding to a disaster and its immediate needs. We're not so good at maintaining that giving through the months and years needed to completely rebuild.

One of the important organizations helping in New York is Occupy Sandy, a part of Occupy Wall Street. They had spent a few months camping in a park, feeding thousands from camp stoves, and building bicycle-powered generators when police confiscated the gas-powered kind. All that was training for disaster relief work. However, they are clear they are not a charity, but a community building organization.

If the government doesn't handle care for the poor and disaster recovery work, who does? There are so many poor people and disaster relief requires so much in resources our current system of charities would be swamped, simply unable to handle the load. Would we expect private citizens to donate enough (and to a diverse list of organizations) to cover all the need? At the current rate of giving, no, there wouldn't be enough.

A few years ago Mike Ruff moved to New Hampshire, famous for its "Live Free or Die" motto. He joined the Free State Project, working for a smaller government and one that leaves charity work to the private sector. He wants to make happen what I think can't work.

I looked up the Free State Project. Its declaration is that "government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else." They are asking 20,000 like-minded people to move to New Hampshire, "enough to make a real difference!" -- meaning enough to make a difference in elections, voting in legislators who favor minimal gov't.

For Mike Ruff and others in the movement, it also means active civic engagement, including charity work. They feel interpersonal gov't organizations can't meet the needs of the needy, those big groups are too big, too impersonal, and can't really figure out the needs of the community. Local groups of 150 people or so can do what the gov't can't. All that is something to consider. The participants also discover a genuine community where both workers and clients feel well cared for and everyone is able to use their creativity.

I could see great benefit if this kind of charity work spread around the nation. We are all desperate for a greater sense of community. We would all benefit from such close civic engagement.

But I’m left with some big questions:

* What happens if this community based system doesn't raise enough money to meet all the needs for which the gov't used to provide?

* Suppose our gov't cuts services to the needy by lowering taxes and citizens see that money in their paychecks. Will be able to encourage citizens to invest that money into community organizations? Since our society is so self-centered at the moment that is an important concern.

* How do we convince citizens that their time, talents, and efforts are also needed?

* Does anyone coordinate the giving (of both money and labor) so that all the various needs are met? Or does the needs of immediate disaster relief have to compete for dollars with long-term disaster relief and both of those compete with the everyday needs of the poor? Doesn't that increase overhead?

* Will charities in Montana adequately respond to disasters (like Sandy) that happen in New Jersey?

The Free State people don't trust gov't to protect them and take care of the needy. They may have a point, especially if the gov't is an oppressive power (though I acknowledge by their definition it already is). But while community based charity sounds wonderful, I don't yet believe it can take care of the needy in the same way a government can.