Comment by marbletiles | Hacker News Reader

Comment by marbletiles | Hacker News Reader

>Some might say that non-profits do good, while for-profits do business, but I don’t believe that 1. matters, or 2. suggests that for-profits don’t do good.

It's pretty easy to say "non-profits should pay the same as for-profits" when you exclude the entire foundation of the difference.

Non-profits get treated differently to incentivise their work. Instead of working to increase shareholder value, they work for some ulterior goal -- generally a beneficial goal that couldn't be brought around as a side-effect of some profit-making enterprise.

This difference isn't just a "some other difference", it's the crux. It's why they get special tax status while for-profit businesses -- yes, even those that "do good" -- don't. Society wants to encourage the work of non-profits.

Companies should consider offering special pricing to non-profits because it helps to encourage organisations that exist purely to do good, not organisations that are legally mandated to make money and may do good as a side-effect.

That assumes you believe non-profits actually do good. I do not feel this is remotely accurate about nonprofits as a class. Some aim to do good but are hideously ineffective, and some do "charitable" things that I find full-stop evil. (Some do good well, and I choose to donate to them.) That is true for just about anyone, since nonprofits are so diverse. Why assume a-priority they are better than other organizations?

e.g. International Tobacco Growers Association is a non-profit. They do good?

btw: I think you're looking for 'a priori'

Steve Jobs needs to bring trademarked benign fascism to Japanese iPad spelling corrections. They get me all the time.

The actual implementation of non-profit status in the US is a different issue.

Consider patents. I agree with the idea of patents, but totally disagree with the US implementation. Likewise, I agree with giving discounts to non-profit organisations, but the more I dig the less I agree with the US system for awarding the status.

But that wasn't the argument made in the post. It wasn't "we would discount to non-profits if only there weren't so many lame orgs with that status" it was "why would we ever do this?".

>The actual implementation of non-profit status in the US is a different issue.

And how would you change that? I mean, you can't actually have the government decide what is "the greater good" and what is not- the whole point of charities is that they are non-governmental entities; they work on problems the government is either not addressing or addressing ineffectively.

I believe that non-profits on the whole are more likely to work to directly "do good" than for-profits. Whilst it might mean I end up "supporting" a cause that I personally would not subscribe to, as a broad definition it seems suitable to distinguish pricing policies based on this if I want, on the whole, to support organisations that "do good".

You need to give a few examples, else you make a full-stop assumption of the opposite nature.

Also, I think you mean a priori.

Do you have strong opinions about abortion? Whatever they are, there's a non-profit actively working to the contrary.

Do you have strong opinions about what is a bad way to help poor people, perhaps even harming them? There's a non-profit doing that.

Do you have strong political opinions? There's a non-profit, probably a very well-funded non-profit, promoting the opposite with things you consider lies.

That's before we even get into corruption or just plain administrative competence. Specific examples would just set the thread aflame; it's pretty obvious "hideously ineffective" and "[what] I find full-stop evil" non-profits exist. Your list may be different than my list, but we could both come up with one. Unless you have no strong opinions, in which case we could probably still find something in the political category to get you worked up if we tried.

I won't disagree with any of that, nor on the face of it do I disagree with Patrick.

My only issue with his comment is that he's challenged an argument on the basis of a faulty assumption (that charities do good) by introducing a new assumption (that charities might do good, but often do evil) without defending it. So from the standpoint of defensible logic it isn't much better.

I see another commentor made a point about the International Tobacco Growers Association. That's all I was looking for... something we can sink our teeth into that allows the skeptics among us to reject Conclusion A for Conclusion B.

Seems easier to simply donate to them, instead of lowering prices universally. I wouldn't donate to every non-profit, not all of them are aligned with my opinions. So why give a flat effective donation to all of them?

You don't offer non-profits discounts because you necessarily agree with everything they do. Rather, you offer the discount because you agree with the entire concept of "non-profits".

Your opinion of a particular non-profit doesn't come in to play. And by being a way of donating without having to take sides it can actually be a benefit to you -- some businesses have been hurt by who they choose to support.

By offering a blanket discount to charities, you offer support to organisations trying to do good (even if you disagree with their definition) in a non-partisan way. Some of your customers will support some of them, others will support others.

Nearly all of your customers will support one cause or another. How could you choose? Non-profit discounts allow you to support good works without having to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com