PETA vs NRA

Would it be a good idea if donors to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and donors to the NRA (National Rifle Association) pooled their donations and then elected representatives to decide how to split the money between the two organizations?

Why wouldn't it be a good idea for taxpayers to directly decide whether their individual taxes go to the Department of Defense or the Department of Education?

Xerographica said:

Would it be a good idea if donors to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and donors to the NRA (National Rifle Association) pooled their donations and then elected representatives to decide how to split the money between the two organizations?

Click to expand...

That's a great idea. I'd make that a law right now for the laughs.

Xerographica said:

Would it be a good idea if donors to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and donors to the NRA (National Rifle Association) pooled their donations and then elected representatives to decide how to split the money between the two organizations?

Why wouldn't it be a good idea for taxpayers to directly decide whether their individual taxes go to the Department of Defense or the Department of Education?

Click to expand...

Sounds great when you say it, but how would you put it into practice?

God, don't give them any money. They're a bunch of idiotic, militant, extremist kooks.

I don't like the NRA either.

Gipper said:

God, don't give them any money. They're a bunch of idiotic, militant, extremist kooks.
s have
I don't like the NRA either.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the NRA is nothing more than a gun lobby and PETA members have been known to destroy property.

I don't care much for PETA or the NRA.
PETA is too extreme for me.
and the NRA is far too soft for me.

neither gets my money

Xerographica said:

Would it be a good idea if donors to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and donors to the NRA (National Rifle Association) pooled their donations and then elected representatives to decide how to split the money between the two organizations?

Why wouldn't it be a good idea for taxpayers to directly decide whether their individual taxes go to the Department of Defense or the Department of Education?

Click to expand...

Because education would fail. Americans would rather shoot people than have their children compete with the world...I semi take that back...they would have the compete if it was sports.

I have some other ideas on what should happen when/if the NRA and PETA join forces.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I have some other ideas on what should happen when/if the NRA and PETA join forces.

Click to expand...

You mean something like this?

StillBallin75 said:

Sounds great when you say it, but how would you put it into practice?

Click to expand...

Taxpayers would be able to directly allocate their taxes among the various government organizations (GOs) at anytime throughout the year. Each GO website would have a fundraising progress bar. As soon as a taxpayer submitted a payment the GO would send a notice to the IRS. The IRS would just keep track and make sure that everybody paid the proper amount by the end of the year.

Any taxpayer that did not want to bother deciding for themselves could just send all their taxes to congress. Then congress would try and fill in any perceived gaps.

In essence, taxpayers would be transformed into public donors. They would joyfully write checks to the government because all their money would go to public goods that they truly valued. It would be impossible for any public good to be underfunded because supply of a public good would meet demand.

As Tucker Case pointed out...the current system of allocating public resources is a joke. For some time now congress has been fighting over how much money should be allocated to the victims of Hurricane Irene. With my proposed system...maybe congress would still fight...but taxpayers would have the option to directly allocate as much of their taxes as they wanted to FEMA.

People would still have to pay the same tax rate...but if we allow people to be directly responsible for funding the public goods that they value...I wonder what percentage of taxpayers would pay more than their fair share of taxes.

Plus, forcing government organizations to compete for funding is the only way to force them to operate efficiently. Even if taxpayers value a public good...they would be extremely reluctant to allocate their hard-earned money to a GO that would just waste it. That's why there are sites like Charity Navigator which help donors evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of non-profit organizations.

coolwalker said:

Because education would fail. Americans would rather shoot people than have their children compete with the world...I semi take that back...they would have the compete if it was sports.

Click to expand...

Here's a pie chart representing donations to the NRA in comparison to donations to education...



Sources: Wikipedia and Giving USA 2010 report (pdf)

When you try and think of possible scenarios it's essential to keep in mind that there is a strong correlation between education and income...



As a veteran and a graduate of a public university here's how I would allocate my taxes. Please feel free to add your own allocation pie chart to that thread.

Why would PETA and the NRA cooperate on anything? Their views are about as polar opposite as they get.

They are organizations centered around very different issues, so no.

I think I may end up joining the NRA. I would be one of the very few liberals in there.

Voltaire X said:

They are organizations centered around very different issues, so no.

I think I may end up joining the NRA. I would be one of the very few liberals in there.

Click to expand...

Michael Moore is a member of the NRA. You can befriend him.

Voltaire X said:

They are organizations centered around very different issues, so no.

I think I may end up joining the NRA. I would be one of the very few liberals in there.

Click to expand...

John F Kennedy was a member but then again under current standards he hardly would have been a liberal.

actually a few liberals are members. I know some who like to shoot.

Deuce said:

Why would PETA and the NRA cooperate on anything? Their views are about as polar opposite as they get.

Click to expand...

Why would Democrats and Republicans cooperate on anything? Their views are about as polar opposite as they get. Trying to force PETA and NRA to agree on funding would be as ridiculous as expecting Democrats and Republicans to agree on funding. Rather than trying to force polar opposites to agree we should just allow taxpayers to directly fund the government organizations that they value.

Xerographica said:

Why would Democrats and Republicans cooperate on anything? Their views are about as polar opposite as they get. Trying to force PETA and NRA to agree on funding would be as ridiculous as expecting Democrats and Republicans to agree on funding. Rather than trying to force polar opposites to agree we should just allow taxpayers to directly fund the government organizations that they value.

Click to expand...

They're really not. Get outside of America and visit another country with an entirely different culture and values, and the difference between American liberals and American conservatives becomes almost trivial.

It's not really the views that are polar opposite, it's the bull**** rhetoric, politicking, and gamesmanship that is.

Xerographica said:

Why would Democrats and Republicans cooperate on anything? Their views are about as polar opposite as they get. Trying to force PETA and NRA to agree on funding would be as ridiculous as expecting Democrats and Republicans to agree on funding. Rather than trying to force polar opposites to agree we should just allow taxpayers to directly fund the government organizations that they value.

Click to expand...

Democrats and Republicans aren't nearly as different as you think they are.

StillBallin and Deuce, the difference between American liberals and American conservatives is not trivial when it comes to public goods...which is the point of this thread. I didn't have to live/work in China, Panama, Afghanistan, Spain, etc to realize that. Anybody can just read the debates on this forum to recognize that there are as many different views on the importance of various government organizations as there are different views on the importance of various non-profit organizations.

If the non-profit sector was forced to operate like the public sector then it would suffer greatly. To greatly improve the public sector we just need to observe what already works in the non-profit sector. The non-profit sector works because people are allowed to directly support the organizations that they feel are the most important. This same division of labor concept can be applied to taxpayers and government organizations.