Posted on April 12, 2013
I came across an interesting debate on the New York Times website questioning whether charities are more effective than our government. While it would be amazing to not be taxed by government and decide where our money could be charitably sent, one of the debaters at the Times makes the very good point that there are a lot of things that require money that may not appeal to people because they are “unglamorous but essential” such as building roads and bank regulation. Another debater writes that “privately financed efforts have an advantage in helping individuals with their own special situations” and can “be led by local champions.” The articles on this debate are insightful and thought-provoking lending interesting opinions on a question I’ve found myself asking on more than one occasion. The “Room for Debate” section of the New York Times website says that it “invites knowledgeable outside contributors to discuss news events and other timely issues.” The website also affirms that readers comments are moderated Monday through Friday. Room for Debate is also accessible here on Facebook.