I give to charities out of purely selfish motives: If I should ever need them, I want them to be there for me. It is in my rational self-interest to fund a safety net that might someday catch me. I needn't pretend that I'm doing it "for the people" in order to feel good about it.
Perhaps so, but is it the best strategy in the long run?
Your donations to a given charity only help that charity in that dollar amount, and by the time you need the safety net, that money will be long gone. You are, of course, hoping that they will have a steady inflow of donations so that is not an issue, but I fail to see how
your specific donations would help ensure that. Either they will continue to be funded, or they will not -- regardless of your relatively small contribution.
If you save that money instead, and invest it responsibly, you have a much higher certainty of it being there when you need a safety net.
Yet, even with your best planning and efforts at saving and investing, you could still end up needing more than you have personally accumulated. This is where insurance services (not burdened by govt red tape) come in. They are run with a profit motive, and are far more stable than charities.
Of course, such unburdened, low-overhead insurance services do not yet exist, because the AMOG stands squarely in the way. In their absence, I consider the smartest strategy to be saving and investing. Any charities that are destined to stay in operation will be there if that money runs out, whether you've contributed or not, and in the event that you need to fall back on them, you could (in most cases) contribute once you are back on your feet, in order to make good on the obligation you have incurred.
I completely understand that if everyone took this approach, charities would not even exist in the first place. The thing is, I am focusing on arriving at a world where unburdened insurance services
are the safety net, not charities. As I see it, charities themselves are a symptom of the AMOG. Relying on charities amounts to securing your well-being at the expense of others. Even though it is a voluntary relationship, it is still pretty far removed from taking full self-responsibility for your own well-being.
Because of the incredibly burdensome AMOG red tape, most safety net services through insurance are rendered unaffordable. Yet, insurance services are the clearly the self-responsible method of securing a safety net: You take full responsibility for yourself by paying directly for your own safety net(s). You are not asking others to pay for your well-being at all: Each member is
looking out for his own best interest, as they should -- for it is their responsibility and theirs alone.
That is certainly not to say that what you are currently doing, and advocating, is wrong -- not at all. I just question whether it is the smartest approach in terms of longterm self-responsibility.