Saturday, October 17, 2020

Non-profit or theft-funded?

I don't see "non-profit" as a noble thing. Especially since, in most cases, it means it is supported by money stolen by government. I wouldn't want that on my résumé.

I would much rather someone provide a product or service and be rewarded with profit for doing so. 

An ethical non-profit would only be supported by charity, since charity is purely voluntary. Someone sees the value being provided and chooses to chip in to help keep it going. A voluntary trade still occurs. If it can't attract enough support to keep it going, it goes away. This is as it should be.

If something can't make it without being funded by theft it needs to die. No matter how important someone imagines it to be. That doesn't only apply to institutes and social programs. That goes for roads, libraries, schools, police, the military, museums, etc. No exceptions.

Even though it doesn't claim the title, all of government is a coercive non-profit organization-- no profit, but great, dishonest financial gain for the players. 

If government can be financed by either attracting voluntary customers who carry the entire costs of maintaining it-- earning it a "profit"-- or by attracting voluntary charity, then you can keep your government. Otherwise, let it die a well-deserved death. I neither want nor need it and I certainly can't afford to keep funding something as unwanted as that obsolete "non-profit", theft-funded institution.


Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
Check out my prepper community on locals!
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.


  1. I'm not especially fond of the "non-profit" sector myself, insofar as it seems somewhat fraudulent in construction (plenty of people extract profits from "non-profits," they just aren't considered to have an "ownership" interest as the means of doing so).

    I'm interested, though, in why you think "in most cases, [non-profit] means it is supported by money stolen by government."

    The main distinguishing features of a "non-profit" are that it doesn't have its money STOLEN BY government, and that its donors get less of their money STOLEN BY government. The only thing I dislike about that is its non-universality (not everyone gets to claim the status and have less or no money stolen).

    1. Most (actually, I can't think of an exception) of them I've encountered may get some donations, but they also get government handouts. If they were 100% voluntarily funded and then not robbed by the state, I wouldn't care. I still wouldn't think they are noble simply because they are non-profit, but they would at least be honest.