I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently: why are there so many charities?
Not only are charities understandably spread out over many issues, but there are many multiple charities for each issue itself.
This is especially true for less common, and more individual issues: for every cancer patient and missing child, there seems to be a separate charity.
Is this necessary? It seems simpler and more productive to host a single ‘omnicharity’.
Issues, were this adopted, would no longer necessarily receive such individual attention. But public relations and other costs could be significantly cut with this program, leaving more of each donation for charitable use.
It would of course be a crime to dissolve charities forcibly, and replace them with an omnicharity, but perhaps the such a program could be opt-in for organizations.
Mr. Gelb cogently describes the nuclear standoff with NK. How about following out the logic? Nuclear Weapons as"Security" are neither illegal nor irrational for any Sovereign State. Anyone who thinks they are dangerous should consider the next logical step: make them Illegal (for any country).Of course, a substitute Security program would be necessary, but that merely needs to be "re-invented"; the States of the US are secure from attack by neighboring states, because its "Illegal"