<div class="text-justify">

It is almost midnight, and I have just sat down to start writing an article for the first time today. Normally, I try to do it a bit earlier, but it always depends on what is going on, and lately, there has been a lot of illness, as well as work on top that is biting into my time. I have to do better than this, as writing is like a mental massage for me, so it is part of a self-care regimen. If we fail to look after ourselves, we can become pretty useless for others.

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/244UqwDLN4Cmnv5qccm55dRayMN5FahuME9N6UdZ1kAuKxQPuAWmJ5GCPZ8zNq8vRjKyA.png)

I was thinking about charity work a little today, and wondering if it is going to further change form in the future. It has already shifted to crowdsourcing money for all kinds of charity funding, which is something I at least partially disagree with, as a lot of people seem to use it to fund things that they should prepare for themselves, like funerals. It is also often used in areas where governments should be spending tax money, but they won't as long as they aren't forced to.  However, if people want to donate, that is their choice and their business to do so.

In some ways, I also agree with it, because what it is doing is highlighting the failure of centralized governance when it comes to resource allocation. The more we take responsibility for ourselves, the less we rely on an authority to provide and hopefully at some point, *the average* person recognizes that they are able to handle their own resources after all. 

For instance, while taxes aren't going anywhere for a while, image there was a 50/50 model, where 50% of tax money went to a basic set of needs that are able to be handled relatively centrally, like transport infrastructure, healthcare (like northern European models), and maybe basic education, social services, and the like. However, the other 50% would need to be spent, but allocated by the taxpayer directly. For instance, social housing and military spending. What would the majority spend their 50% on? 

> You?

This would be quite a good model to engage the public and better meet the real needs of populations, however, just think what kinds of corporations would suffer. And then, what kinds of governments would get into power. Assuming that people would spend in their own self interest and that of their local community, a lot of the global problems wouldn't exist, because none would form large enough forces. 

>War is the product of the state, not the people. 

And a product it is. Just look at the basic breakdown of the US expenditure, which is the largest military spender in the world, three times greater than China in second place. 

>In 2022 the USA allocated $295 billion to military operations and maintenance, $264 billion to procurement and research and development, and $167 billion to military personnel. [](https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/world-military-expenditure-reaches-new-record-high-european-spending-surges)

People aren't the expense, it is all the corporation supplied goods and services. Corporations that have investors, and provide incentive to increase spending on military. A good war, or fear of war, is a money spinner. In total, the US spent 877 billion on military in 2022.

*That we know about.* 

Yet, I wonder if that $877B had been allocated by the people, in an environment of high inflation and massive cost of living expenses change, would people have chosen more weapons, or something else? Affordable housing, reducing the cost of food and utilities. Would that $264B that went into procurement and research and development, have perhaps instead gone into improving energy production and supply? And would the $295B get diverted from military operations and maintenance, to community development and community infrastructure? 

Taxes aren't necessary, but they can really only be phased out over a long period of time. However, in order to start the transition, there has to be incremental changes to the tax processes, that reduces the reliance on governments to make decisions, and increases the responsibility of the people to make the decisions. Even starting with a 5% every five years, would see us start to shift the needle, and build the habits and culture, as well as work out the kinks so as to start the transition.

At the moment, a lot of people who are against tax are looking to get out of the system altogether, which is very understandable. However, ultimately, in order to build a better society, isolated avoidance isn't the answer, community-backed change is. There are tools available, there is plenty of room for innovation and development, and it would not only produce jobs, but jobs in areas and industries that are important to us, not the authoritarian state.

Perhaps, under a different economic system, one that is driven by us, charity does change form, because rather than the areas of need going lacking, we the people support them. It wouldn't be through charity as we know it today, but rather through society functioning well together, heavily reducing the need for charity in the first place. 

I wonder, did charity exist in tribal life, or was it just part of the economy and culture of the community?

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>

Posted Using [InLeo Alpha](https://inleo.io/@tarazkp/not-uncharitable)