Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThrowITout4321 | Hacker News Reader

No, but it's troubling to know that some of these non profits will live forever. I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. If I give it enough money the foundation can live forever thru wise investments of its endowment. There would be nothing to stop it from doing its work forever. The foundation can even influence political causes by funding research that support the foundation's cause. The tax except foundation can't directly lobby but it can fund research that will have a political impact.

Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.

View on HN

It’s really hard to find examples of pernicious institutions set up this way.

The Prohibition Party is still around because of a trust that funds them indefinitely.

But nobody cares about the Prohibition Party.

Some ecclesiastical organizations have this sort of perpetual funding. Sometimes via taxes, and sometimes investments.

But it doesn’t make the organizations insanely powerful. The Catholic Church in Germany is hardly a political player.

Trinity Church in New York has a billion dollar endowment. They’re not big players in the US religious landscape.

Real power requires more than money.

It seems what it does is ensures some person 150 years from now will have a cushy job with little power or responsibility, but lots of cash.

The original parent organization to modern Planned Parenthood had some pretty abhorrent for the modern times views, and there is evidence to suggest it still has similar aims disguised in a broader social agenda.

> I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society.

and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"?

If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.

The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by relative participation rates.

If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.

It is good in theory, but does it work in practice though? For example, majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening. There are so many "think tanks" and non-profits whose sole job is to advocate shitty ideas of their ultra rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of.

Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.

What makes you think the majority supports this?

Abortion

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ft_20...

Maternity

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/america...

Wage

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americ...

> majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening.

That majority is not evenly distributed across the country. In areas where those people do form a majority, they do enact laws supporting those things. In areas where there is not a majority supporting those things, they don't.

Don't worry: some dumbass will end up drawing a large salary to "host galas and fundraising". Unlikely any organization can survive to operate in its primary purpose past a few generations.

What's the difference between "putting all your wealth in a foundation that will do your bidding after you die" and "donating all your wealth to the most like-minded person that will continue to do your bidding after you die"? Sure, the latter isn't 100%, but the former isn't 100% either (regulations can change in the future), and even disregarding that, are we suddenly okay with it if the chance that your bidding will be carried out is 99% rather than 100%?

> What's the difference between "putting all your wealth in a foundation that will do your bidding after you die" and "donating all your wealth to the most like-minded person that will continue to do your bidding after you die"? Sure, the latter isn't 100%, but the former isn't 100% either (regulations can change in the future), and even disregarding that, are we suddenly okay with it if the chance that your bidding will be carried out is 99% rather than 100%?

That 99% compounds though. Sure, maybe you find someone pretty like-minded. 50 years from now, are they going to be able to find someone 50 years younger than them but just as like-minded? And their replacement 50 years on? Realistically you couldn't maintain any objective that was too far out of line with the general culture.

Foundation is a great way to do that because you can swap the board/trustees out for other natural persons indefinitely

And the bylaws can force this too

Reply on news.ycombinator.com