since google docs is screwing up and i can’t work on a peice for inkfell. i’m bloging on here instead.
first is an ethnic definition which is operative in the commentary, fair traditionally refers to a clean and equal split of a reward(s) amongst participents. a more recent utilitarian position where fairness is proportionate to labor is simply not going to be used.
so i’ve noticed allot of advocacy hypocracy where people advocate a sale of an idea, either a sale of a good or a sale of service, or a sale of an idea, but they arne’t actually personal ‘benefactors’ of their advocacy, they merely advocate the cause. here are some examples:
street corner proselytizing
hyperbolic straw men where problems are recognized and the solutions are attributed to groups not working on them. like feminists saying the third world sucks for women and saying therefore we should donate to a first world organization uninterested and uninvolved over seas. or anti-vaccine people saying that the government should instead donate the research funds to churches.
in general, participating in public events seems to offer people the pretense of esteem regarding whether they support a cause. they all beg me to question, what are you actually doing to help the cause. at best you are showing yourself to be receptive for corporate advertisers and nonprofits to conspire to posture as being the benefactor.
and these people don’t donate.
so here is a challenge to anyone advocating other people donate money to an organization of favor within your prejudice. donate something beyond time. lets say you have a minimum wage job, money will be very tight, but if you try to suggest your cause is extremely important but rather than being personally charitable to buy extremely expensive products, your credibility and our credulity suffers. rather than donating to
point is donate to the group at least what you request; put your blood in the pot. if you say you want people to donate a dollar each, you should have personally at least have donated one dollar, and it would be better if you donated 20 or 50.
and if you really want to be credible, donate your wage for the time you spent. let’s say you have a wage of $10/hr and you are going to go out and picket for 5 hours, you should not only be working for free but should be paying to try getting others to join, at the personal cost of your wage. it shows a nobility of cause to reward an organization for your affiliation with it. and $50 seems very little but if the entirety of the organization is set up that way, then it shows the power and the courage of your convictions and the dire necessity your cause has.
if you are trying to get it so a new trial of breast cancer research is done, and it costs 5 million to do. the nobillity of the cause is tainted if the advocates seem to be mere marketers for it. this is shown in another degree by people being employed by the non-profit companies which use donations and begging to garnish their salaries. sure, you get paid less for working at a non-profit, but you still get paid. and do employees donate as much as the organization modally recieves? so if the most common donation is $5, is there a pairty- a match by all employees directly towards the cause in that amount.
again i’m not talking about lost wages, as that isn’t a conscientious action. but employees at the end of the day choosing the cause when tempted by good and services they could otherwise apply the money towards.
it isn’t just the lack of wages, but negative wages, where the people wearing ribbons or bracelets or pamphlets or whatever other propaganda is sold actually pay for and donate beyond mere book keeping.
people who buy the good they are selling appear to speak more in earnest. and those who will take money out of their pocket to donate more than they have to ‘play the game fair’ to allow someone who truly can’t afford inclusion, to still be included; those are the good people.
i’m not asking you to give your lively hood to a cause. i’m asking you, the public, to realize that charities shouldn’t turn into salaried institutions. i’m asking people who want to donate time to a cause to go beyond it to donate money minimally to be an honest part of the cause they advocate others to be. and to go beyond it and imagine the task as being ‘the boss’ and that all the people you interact with are people who could be using their time to do thing that they were interested in long before you came onto the scene self-important in your cause. and in the same way a boss pays employees to listen to her/him, be willing to personally sacrifice your time and the cost/value of your time to the cause to show a shared comradery; like a boss seeing that her workers aren’t getting a bonus so she refuses one as well.
you don’t have to pay your audience the minimum wage to hear your spiel, but you should be willing to give the organization you represent that much. why? because the cause they are doing, they are doing on the behalf of the wants of the donators, they are the employee and you are their boss, and what you are trying to convince other people to do is become co-partners in the selfless venture, by donating into your ‘favored machine’ to have some %Return_on_investment going all the way through to benefit the target demographic (hence the name benefactor). donating time for the cause is extracuricular, donating your extrinsicly limited income exemplifies conviction.
if you donate your time to a cause, but don’t donate your experience and expertise, you only donate half. and menial/unskilled labour is the cheaper half.