I think another thing to think about with charity is control and agency. Charity is, I'd argue inherently extremely undemocratic. Most people will never be able to afford philanthropy in any meaningful way, so Charity means subjugating yourself to the control and decisions of richer and more powerful people. There are more and less extreme cases of this, of course. I vaguely remember a eugenics charity in the US that paid "lesser" people to sterilize themselves or perform abortions. However, even in less extreme cases, the top down control of charity is inherently oppressive. It allows rich people to "vote with their wallets" on the lives of the general population. Sure, everyone can technically vote, but some people have a million times more votes than others.
Does this mean we should outlaw charities? I don't think so. This only becomes a problem in a country where there is extreme wealth inequality and the rights of the general populace are not guaranteed. Charity seems like a good way to stuff small holes in a general welfare system, but it shouldn't be the welfare system.
Does this mean we should outlaw charities? I don't think so. This only becomes a problem in a country where there is extreme wealth inequality and the rights of the general populace are not guaranteed. Charity seems like a good way to stuff small holes in a general welfare system, but it shouldn't be the welfare system.