What do others think of Dick Smith's threat to name and shame the "selfish" rich for not "giving back to their community"? He wants them to "rack off" if they won't open their wallets to donate. Not mincing his words, that's for sure. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/smith-thr...help-others-20110909-1k1sy.html#ixzz1XkAduhie
I really think he should mind his own business and not the business of his fellow millionaires. He has made it known that he has given a million. Well then his reward is here. If you make a big public deal about your generosity then he's doing it to make himself look good, not necessarily because he actually has any concern for his fellow man. Any persons that he outs for shame and ridicule ought to sue him for defamation and ask for monetary compensation. I bet that will change his mind PDQ.
I can somewhat understand his fundamental point but I think his approach is too simplistic and misses some practical points (not uncommon with people who think problems are solved by throwing lots of money at them). He assumes that most or all charitable giving from the people he's targeting will take the form of donation from private income with tax relief subsequently claimed back. The fact is that there are plenty of ways an individual could support charity (or society in general) which wouldn't be apparent in this way. If he's going to start "naming and shaming" people, I think he needs to take a much deeper and wider look at them (probably deeper and wider than is naturally in the public domain). Of course, as suggested in the article, some people don't want to shout about their charity (though I'm much lower on the income scale, I am of that mind personally). He may well instantly disbelieve someone who tells him that and while they could well be lying they could be being perfectly honest. I'm not sure it's reasonable to have an expectation for people (rich or otherwise) to publicise their charitable giving of be condemned as greedy and selfish. There is also a question of where the money goes and how it is spent. If I was in the position to give a million to a charity, I'm not sure I'd consider spending almost half on a statue would be effective use of that money. I can't help wondering how prominently his name is on it telling everyone he paid for it.
It's a close-minded stance in my opinion. Everyone is different, with differing motives. Just because you're rich and you don't give money to charitable causes doesn't mean you're a bad person. Dick has to donate to live with himself. Someone else doesn't. Simple. It's all in the head of the individual. "Before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience." - Atticus Finch
I don't like Dick Smith, but I agree with him. If you are richer than God, you should be morally obliged to help out. If people with nothing can find enough money to make a donation to charity, why can't the rich?
This isn't really about being obliged to donate but being obliged by Dick Smith to donate in a form he can see and deems worthy, in the face of threats of public condemnation. It seems to fly in the face of the principal of charity in the first place. Incidentally, will you be publishing your financial records to demonstrate your level of charitable giving or does this public obligation only apply to people richer than you happen to be?
He is outspoken. And rich. He is speaking out against some of his peers. It bugged him and he hit out. He's human, he's entitled to speak out if he wishes. He hasn't outed anyone yet, I don't think. I personally don't think he's doing it to make himself look good. He's quite the political chap in his own way, and I think he genuinely got the (*)(*)(*)(*)s that his peers weren't doing their bit. He has been Australian of the Year, and has been afforded a number of awards and what-not. Others may disagree, but I don't think he was "attention-seeking" in this case. I think he was genuinely pissed off and made the statement/s. I think he does care about the "fellow man" kind of thing. And that's WHY he was hitting out... so that more of the rich would help out their fellow man / do their bit. Anyway, see what happens. Might have been a storm in a teacup. I think he just got the (*)(*)(*)(*)s and hit out. He's allowed.
The more I think about it, I think it was a "raw nerve" kind of thing. Something that pushed his buttons and he hit out. A spontaneous kind of outburst thing. It may just be also that while fraternising among his peers, that others may disclose to him the fact they don't donate or contribute. That's possible. He would clearly have rich friends in his network. He would find out in some ways, quite possibly. I think the money went to the boy scouts and it was the boy scout organisation that chose to have the statue. Rather than Dick Smith. He donates around a million a year... and has done for a long time... so that money has gone to very many things. I'm not big on statues myself.
I think it's a pissed off hitting out stance, myself. I don't agree that Dick Smith has to give money to live with himself. It's a lot a matter of how we frame our words and ideas. To say he gives money because he wants to make a contribution to society is another way to look at it / to say it. And it's quite possibly a more positive way of looking at it / saying it. But who knows, because we are both speculating... He's quite possibly being a ratbag and having a go at his peers. It doesn't bother me. That's his character, I guess. And once you get to live with yourself... you go out to live with others... and you may see that those who could have some greater affect on the community... don't do anything about it... and because you have a ratbag character, you go after them... Dick Smith hitting out doesn't bother me. It's in some part - for a good cause... at least, that's how I see it. Others can see it how they wish, I don't mind.
All the more reason for his position to be tempered with some rational thinking. The reference to tax rebates suggests otherwise. I would have thought that if he'd ever had succh conversations, he'd have mentioned it in his "outburst" (though not necessarily naming names). If you're donating a million dollars, you're going to get some say in how it's spent, if only unofficially. My point stands that just handing a wodge of money over (then claiming back the tax) doesn't automatically make you better than someone who could do the same but (apparently) doesn't.
It's all in the past experiences of the individual. Humans are conditioned to judge people and we relate to people we judge to be like ourselves. If they share a common past, or simply can sympathise with someone for whatever reason, we help out. That's the moral obligation caused due to shared experiences. If a rich person has not had that experience then that "connection" if you can call it that does not exist and nor does the obligation to help out. So the rich CAN but they DON'T which makes perfect sense. Yes, so Dick has a ratbag character because he fails to tolerate difference. Besides most rich people think poor people don't deserve help because they fail to help themselves first. It is grossly applied to poor people collectively. There are many poor people who work their @$$ off to make ends meet. Honestly though, they're doing something wrong. It's remarkably true how people fail to help themselves first.
Rather than "outing the rich" which has cynical undertones why not publish a list of the people and businesses who make the greatest contributions to charity. From that list we can infer the people and businesses who don't donate and choose whether to continue supporting their businesses or switch to businesses that are philanthropic. I think we should encourage a culture whereby people and businesses are financially rewarded for giving back rather than the current trend of rewarding the ruthless and greedy.
