Libertarian Nations

This is an example of not being able to see the path not taken. But rest assured, it was there. Yes, the internet arose out of the protocols created by DARPA. But it was not necessary for government to be involved - at the time the internet got started there were already competing private protocols springing up. There is no doubt in my mind that had the goverment never involved itself in networking at all, we’d still have an internet today. The underlying protocols might be a little different, but the end result was the same.

I was involved heavily in the pre-internet online communications sphere. Not only were there private BBS’s everywhere, but they were starting to link together through protocols like fidonet. Companies like Galacticomm were creating hardware and software to allow the construction of early non-internet ISP’s. I ran one of their systems commercially - we could bring in as many as 64 phone lines into a single PC and enable online chatting, multiplayer games, E-mail, etc. We were part of an E-mail network of similar nodes that allowed people to send files and E-mails around the world.

At the same time, CompuServe was a very large computer system that was available through a network backbone. They made that available commercially as well, so that people could dial local numbers and connect to remote systems. AOL also appeared around this time.

All of these networks, plus several others, were rapidly evolving. My company sold a text-retrieval system that had a Google-link interface that allowed people to connect to our computer and search for keywords through thousands of documents.

What actually happened is that the internet was opened up to the public, and because it had been government subsidized and had a large, existing infrastructure it simply displaced all the other networks. But anyone active at the time could have seen the potential for any of these other networks, or a combination of them, to become ‘the internet’.

In any event, the actual underlying protocols and the first backbones were just a kickstart - what we think of today as ‘the internet’ is everything built on top of all of that. Giving government credit for what the internet is today is like giving Henry Ford credit for the entire automobile industry. Ford may have been there first and rapidly became the biggest, but there were many other competing auto companies and had Ford not been there, someone else would have filled the vacuum.

That may be changing. The Obama administration has proposed a number of new regulations to be applied to the internet. Congress wants internet taxes. Other governments want international policing of the internet. Big entertainment is successfully getting increasingly draconian laws passed restricting how we use data on the internet. There are calls for international regulatory agencies to control the internet to prevent ‘subversive’ speech. If we’re not vigilant, the internet will eventually be smothered by government like most other things.

One of the difficulties people seem to have grokking capitalism and libertarianism is that they simply don’t understand how spontaneous order happens. They think the alternative to central planning is chaos.

Imagine if the government had taken upon itself to invent the airplane. Let’s say it spent huge amounts of money and employed all the best engineers in a grand project to learn how to fly. If it succeeded, people today would be saying that it’s obvious that man would never have learned the secret of flight without the government. The notion that a couple of bicycle makers could have achieved that in their garage would have been ludicrous. But it happened that way, because the Wrights stood on the shoulders of all the other people who tried and failed. Each failure taught us a little more, and eventually we got to the point where the materials and understanding came together to enable someone to build an airplane. It wasn’t just the Wright Brothers - it was the people who developed lightweight engines, and who experimented with control systems and materials.

Look at the early progress of aviation - mostly without government being involved at all. Major advances in aerodynamics came from wealthy industrialists sponsoring prizes that attracted innovators. People like Howard Hughes put their fortunes into research and development. Early great fighter planes of WWII like the Spitfire were based on seaplane racers built for the burgeoning air race industry. Along the way, passenger planes and the first airlines got underway.

To enable this, private industry had to work out a million different standards for materials, fasteners, fuels and lubricants, you name it. And the same is true today. If you can’t conceive of a widespread communications network like the internet being created without government planning, just look around you at the immense interrelated supply chains that go into providing the products you use. Look at all the complex standards that have arisen out of the private market - everything from database standards to screwdriver bits to connection protocols for electronic devices.

There is nothing unique about the internet that required the government to build it. Is just so happens that the government was involved, and therefore it got the jump on private industry. But it certainly wasn’t necessary.

It’s even a stretch to say that the government was responsible for planning the early internet. DARPA had its own reasons for a fault-tolerant network, and universities took part in it to share information. But it didn’t look anything like today’s internet outside of the simple protocols that are still in use. And in fact, opening it up to commercial use was opposed by most of the people heavily involved in the internet at the time. They didn’t want the great unwashed coming in and wrecking ‘their’ network. And in fact, I recall many people claiming that business interests would destroy the network - it would never stand up to the load, there was no way to make sure that there was enough bandwidth and there would be a digital ‘tragedy of the commons’ whereby everyone grabbed up all the bandwidth they could until the whole thing would be glutted, etc.

Even the major protocol that has defined what we think of as the internet (HTTP and HTML) was developed essentially by a lone programmer at CERN, not even affiliated with the US government. He wasn’t a part of some top-down government plan to build out an internet. These innovations came from scientific institutions and educational institutions not because there’s anything special about government, but because such people were the only ones who had access to it because it was locked away from the public.

Since the public and business have had access to it, many of the new protocols and languages (ASP, JSP, PHP, Flash, Javascript, Acrobat, AJAX, and many more) were developed by private interests.

You don’t need to imagine this - you just have to look around. Private interests invest huge amounts of money in basic R&D. Have you seen what’s going on in the private space industry? Microsoft has an R&D budget of billions of dollars per year. The SETI telescope array was funded by Paul Allen. The cosmic background radiation was discovered by private researchers at Bell labs.

The Human Genome Project was a huge government program to map the human genome. It cost about $3 billion dollars. At the same time, a private company achieved essentially the same thing at 1/10 the cost.

In fact, there is evidence that government R&D spending just displaces private R&D, rather than supplementing it. Look at the first table in this article in the Economist. Total R&D spending in the U.S. has fluctuated between 2 and 3% of GDP, but government R&D has fluctuated between 2% and .6% of GDP. When the government was spending 2% of GDP, private industry was spending about 1%. Today, the government only spends about .6% of GDP on R&D, but private industry has taken up the slack and spends about 2% of GDP on research.

And a lot of this research isn’t just commercial short-term stuff like figuring out a better iPhone display. Private companies do a surprising amount of very basic research. Large industrial firms like Motorola, Microsoft, Lucent, GE, Boeing, and the like spend huge amounts on speculative basic research.

Agreed on the pros-cons point. I brought up the phone system merely because you mentioned it in your post as an example of non-government-led innovation.

The problem was with the original example of the internet as a Libertarian enclave when its origin is so tied up with government action. It truly is hard to imagine the internet in a small-government world. It would probably look much like the early phone system, with one large company controlling access, equipment, and content. It’s possible that it wouldn’t have happened that way, but, as you rightly point out, you can’t replay history to know for sure.

As a corollary, we may find out some of the effects of corporate-run internet policy if backbone providers start charging different rates for different content-providers packets. What is the Libertarian stance on government-enforced net neutrality?

On preview I see Sam has another giant post (where do you find the time?) that I have not read. On brief skimming I readily concede the possibility that corporate-controlled protocols may have arisen spontaneously, independent of DARPANet (I too recall connected to BBSs and Compuserve). And he seems to be anti-Net Neutrality, but it’s possible I’m misreading the list of concerns re: govt intervention on the internet.

Why would that be the case at all? Much of the phone system’s early monopoly was due to patents on a specific type of transmitter, and patent protection is by no means a universal Libertarian position.

Not to mention that from 1934 on, AT&T was a government sanctioned monopoly by the Communications Act of 1934.

As you wish.

You’re citing the example of a government monopoly which had little incentive to answer to consumers.

A better example would be the PC industry, which has developed with almost no government direction at all. Today we have iPads, and portable phones more powerful than desktop computers of just a few years ago. The much-dreaded Microsoft monopoly wasn’t ended by government - it was eaten by competitive forces.

Is there anyone alive who thinks a government-directed computing industry would have resulted in anything like the the amazing infrastructure in computing we have today?

If anything, government has been a barrier to innovation. Regulations make it hard for entrepreneurs to get started. High corporate taxes benefit the big companies that can take advantage of the loopholes, but limit the ability of smaller firms to get off the ground. Regulatory barriers prevent innovation by raising the cost too high: Do you know how old the engines are that power today’s light airplanes? Most of them date back to the pre-WWII era! The reason is that the cost of government certification is so bloody high that there aren’t enough customers to amortize it at a reasonable cost. So no one even bothers. Most of the innovative light aircraft today have their roots in the unregulated homebuilt aircraft industry, which was for a long time the only real source of innovation in personal aviation.

Homebuilt aviation is where Burt Rutan got his start. In the meantime, Cessna was selling $150,000 tin airplanes designed in the 1950’s using engines designed in the 1930’s, because they had to operate in the highly regulated certified aircraft industry.

For comparison - the government-certified Cessna 150 has a 100hp engine, and could fly at a top speed of about 110 mph. A Rutan Varieze homebuilt also had 100hp, but could fly 195 mph. Both carried two passengers. The Rutan Long-Ez is in the same class as the Cessna 172, with 150-160hp. The 172 could go about 120 mph. The Long-Ez could do 185. But the Long-Eze was more stable, more manoeverable, cheaper, lighter, and has a range of over 2,000 miles - more than five times that of the Cessna.

Today, the Long-Eze is the basis for Xcor’s rocket plane. The Cessna 172 is still based on the same 1956 design - you could put a modern one beside a repainted 1960’s model, and only an afficionado could tell the difference.

A Long-Eze could be bult for about $20,000. The Cessna costs $310,000.

Does all that government regulation buy more safety? Not really. More homebuilt/experimental aircraft crash per flight hour than certified planes, but that’s not due to the unregulated nature of the industry - it’s because most homebuilts are higher performance planes that require more skill to fly safely. If you look at the most popular homebuilts like the Long-EZ, the Van’s RV series and the Lancair, you find that in terms of airframe reliability they are at least as good as the major certified planes, despite being built in garages by untrained people.

The government has been learning its lesson and has been slowly lightening up on regulating small aircraft in the U.S. They’ve allowed new categories of sport planes that have lower certification requirements and allowed more freedom for homebuilders to build their planes at the factory to save time and get expert guidance without government oversight, and it’s working. Quality and safety in the industry are going up and the cost to fly is coming down. Imagine that - getting government out out of the way to improve safety.

As I pointed out earlier, we CAN look back at history. CompuServe and AOL were already around. There were thousands of BBSs across the country, and they were rapidly linking together. There were a number of large software vendors creating increasingly sophisticated BBS software. There were a whole lot of ISPs springing up to make money by providing connectivity to the public. I know - I was in the industry. I both ran a large commercial online hub and I wrote and sold software to other BBS operators to improve their systems.

At the time, BBS’s were also starting to install hardware to connect them to commercial communications backbones like the CompuServe network. There was a company called Telegraphix which had build a graphical authoriing system (a precursor to HTML) for building complex pages. My company had a search engine that you could use to find documents. We were connecting together and moving documents around through various competing network protocols.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see where this was heading had the internet not come along. ISDN modems were beginning to appear giving high speed access to the ComputerServe network and others. Consumer demand would have pushed the larger BBS companies into connecting to those networks. The same demand for standardization that led to HTML would have resulted in standardized page description languages.

In the end, we would have landed in pretty much the same place. Maybe it would have been better than the current internet, maybe worse. But there’s no doubt where we were headed, because we were already doing it. Before we ever connected to the internet I could send E-mail around the country through interlinked BBS networks. S.400 mail standards were in place. RIPscript was becoming common for building graphically rich pages. FidoNet was growing rapidly and being extended. All the pieces were there - no huge company needed.

Again, it sounds like you’re having a hard time imagining how complexity can emerge without some central controlling authority like a big business or a big government. But it can, and does. All the time. And with levels of efficiency and complexity the government could never hope to achieve.

There is no common Libertarian stance on this, other than to say that the ideal is to have more competition and let the market sort it out. The problem today is that public access to the internet is often controlled by one or two large ISP’s who have been granted a government monopoly on service to an area, so consumers don’t have a choice. Libertarians don’t like that either. So there’s no ‘pure’ libertarian solution that they all agree on.

I can tell you what this libertarian thinks, though - the emphasis should be on opening up competition for internet access, even if that means forcibly breaking up some of these monopolies or requiring them to make their ‘dark fiber’ available to other companies. Alternatives to cable and telco access like 4G wireless and wide area wifi should be encouraged. Given enough competition, net neutrality stops being a problem because companies that try to shape what their customers get will see their customers simply go somewhere else.

<on edit - sorry for the duplication - I didn’t see your end comment until I posted the above>

Hey, don’t forget about SEMITECH! Where would we be today without the government jumping in to help us form that consortium to stave off the evil Japanese hordes who were going to take over the semiconductor industry? Dodged a bullet with that one!!

I was working at one of the large semiconductor companies at the time, and the guys we sent to SEMATECH were a joke. It was where you put those pestering guys you didn’t want to fire but didn’t want to give any responsibility that would actually affect the company. SEMATECH. It’s funny to look back on that now.

What I mean is that if people didn’t care about the poor, politicians would not win elections by promising to help them. It’s absurd to imagine that if the politicians suddenly all decided to stop aiding the poor and instead returned the money to the taxpayers, that they would shrug with indifference at starving children in the streets. It’s contrary to logic and experience.

Let me put what I was trying to say in mathematical terms.

Our current government allocates X dollars towards caring for orphans and other truly helpless. Y is the amount of that money that goes to overhead and salaries, as well as waste, fraud and abuse. X-Y=Z, which is the amount of actual value delivered to orphans and other truly helpless

Under a “pure” libertarian system, there would be no government money designated for orphans. But neither would there be a lot of other things: trillions now spent on the military would still be in taxpayers’ pockets, as would the trillions spent on prosecuting and jailing people for victimless crimes, and the billions spent on corporate welfare, and the billions spent on various reallocation schemes among the middle class and wealthy, and so on and so on. Call those A, B C, D and E, and their sum is F. Multiply F by .05, because we know that Americans already give about 5% of their income to charity. And then add G, which is the increased amount people give to charity because government isn’t doing it (e.g. the much lower charity rates in strong welfare states such as northern Europe), and subtract H, which is overhead, waste, fraud and abuse in private charities (less, but nonzero). The final figure is J.

The question, then is whether J=Z. And I’m pretty confident it would be.
All of which is something of a moot point, because as has been noted, a basic social safety net is not incompatible with a libertarian philosophy of governance. The most influential Libertarian of the last century advocated a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens. Do you know any progressives that would do that? The idea that most libertarians want some kind of vicious Hobbsean free-for-all is sheer fantasy.
Gary Johnso

Again I tell you, if you want anyone to believe that, you need to get some libertarians on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News whose last name isn’t “Paul”.

I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’m saying that as far as the majority of America is concerned, they may as well not exist.

Clearly, some (or many; again, the qualifier is unimportant to me) people would shrug with indifference. And I do not think there would be nearly enough people who do not to provide adequate support. It seems that you’re more idealistic than I…which is very much the point others have been trying to get across in making the communism/libertarian ideology comparison.

Again, I am not confident of that at all. I’ve done a similar mathematical exercise – although it’s years ago now – and reached the opposite conclusion. As I put the question to Sam Stone, I’ll put it to you: do you have stats on charitable giving from the Bush years?

Look, in case it isn’t clear: I have no problem simply disagreeing. I’m glad that you have a faith in people’s inherent goodness that I simply don’t. But I refuse to accept empty platitudes as axioms (e.g., “don’t worry, [individual citizens | private charities | the market] will (adequately) take care of the orphans”) and feel the need to point them out when they get my attention.

That’s not necessarily so. I mean, I’d assume that in both systems, the poor, at least, would care about the poor. So it’s possible that politicians win elections by promising to help the poor because that way they get the poor to vote for them. And, since there are a lot more poor people than non-poor people, politicians can get elected and forcibly redistribute wealth. In a system where they couldn’t do that, the poor would still care about being poor, but the people with money might not care enough to want to help them.

As a matter of politics, I agree. In this thread, we’re merely trying to fight the ignorance of some members of the SDMB. (and come right down to it, there are other Libertarians on TV – John Stossel, Andrew Napolitano and Greg Gutfeild have shows on Fox. Par of the problem is that much of the media is going to studiously avoid putting on people that don’t fit the tidy donkey vs. elephant mold)

Actually, I’m a pretty cynical person – it’s just that I’m cynical about bureaucratic do-gooderism, too. Again, I converted to libertarianism after spending years working in homeless shelters and housing projects, seeing up-close how things work (or don’t) now.

Sure:

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/fundraisinggiving/impact-changes-tax-rates-charitable-giving

I have no problem agreeing to disagree, either. But this condesceding tone of “faith in people’s inherent goodness” and “empty platitudes as axioms” is insulting. By nature, I am cynical, but I can look at facts and results, and look at people’s actual behavior instead of just making assumptions. Suggesting that people given a tax windfall wouldn’t give a chunk of it to charity is contrary to economic theory and experience. Suggesting that many or even most Homo Sapiens would be indifferent of other suffering Homo Sapiens is contrary to everything we know of the species.

Aside from the excellent post before mine, you might like to read this:

Charitable Donations by Americans Reach Record High

This is from 2007.

Now, you think it’s absurd to believe that if government charity stopped, private charity would step in to make up the difference. But in fact, private charity already totals $245 billion per year.

In comparison, the big social program budgets in the U.S. look like this:
Health and Human Services - $84 billion
Education - $64.3 billion
Housing and Urban Development - $42.8 billion

So private charitable giving by individuals is ALREADY significantly more than HHS, DoE, and HUD combined.

Faced with those facts, it’s pretty hard to argue that it’s impossible for private charitable giving to take up the slack from government if we eliminated government charity.

Now ask yourself how many people out there don’t give to charity because they either feel they give enough through their taxes, or because they make the assumption that this is the government’s role.

And in fact, that’s the pattern you see around the world - when government charity steps in, private charity recedes. That’s why the U.S. has the highest charitable giving rate in the world - people expect less of that from government.

And this doesn’t even count the biggest form of private charity (by far) - charity given to family members and friends. One of the standard conservative/libertarian arguments is that government charity simply displaces private charity, but in doing so it does a lot of damage. Charity given by a grandparent to help a child get through school has a lot of social and psychological benefits - the child is given a concrete example of someone caring for him or her. There’s a feeling of indebtedness or gratitude. The same is true when a neighbor falls on hard times and the community pitches in to help. This builds social bonds and good citizens.

Along comes a government bureaucrat and says, “No need, folks! The government is here to help.” Private help recedes, and now suddenly charity becomes political, and it becomes an entitlement. People go from feeling gratitude at the help of the community, and become resentful because they feel entitled.

You could see this in Canada in the Atlantic regions, where the government propped up the fishing industry with seasonal welfare and aid. Far from making people feel gratitude, the political process made them feel like they were always getting the shaft. Politicians demagogue the issue, telling constituents they’re being screwed over to gain their vote on a promise of getting them more. Community bonds are broken, personal responsibility fades, etc. It’s not healthy.

The other argument is that government charity actually creates the need for more charity, because the incentives create patterns of destructive behavior. If your parents help you buy a home, you’ll take good care of it. If the government tells you you’re entitled to a home and gives you one rent-free, you feel no need to care for it. Just look at what’s happened in the ‘projects’.

These are moral hazards. Knowing that there’s an impartial government safety net there to catch you leads to reckless behavior. People are more willing to quit jobs they don’t like, or not seek out jobs. Families lose part of their incentive to stay close. Extended families start to break apart. People no longer feel a responsibility to their local community.

One of the reasons private savings have declined so dramatically is because people know there’s a safety net to catch them. Ask yourself how much of your paycheck you would save if you knew there was no unemployment insurance, or that if you got sick and lost your job there would be no disability pay. The last generation to be big savers was the generation that grew up around the Great Depression. They knew in their bones that they had to save money for a ‘rainy day’. Government safety nets have eroded that incentive.

I spent a good part of my childhood living in a poor farming region in Saskatchewan. There was very little government aid available. How do you think people managed? They worked together. No one could afford all the trappings of large industrial farming, so we shared. We owned a tractor, our neighbors owned a combine. When the harvest was due, farmers gathered together, pooled their machinery and labor, and we all went around pulling in the crops from one farm after another. People were always coming by to borrow equipment, and we did the same. If someone became ill and couldn’t do their chores, the neighbors pitched in. If someone fell on hard times through no fault of their own, financial aid came from the community. The ‘barn raising’ ritual for a new married couple getting started (or for someone who had a farm building burn down) was still alive and well.

But God help you if you were a drunken layabout, because you’d quickly find out that if you didn’t pitch in to help others, you got no help in return. People learned quickly who was taking more than they would give, and the message got to them to shape up.

Those kinds of local incentives help build bonds of trust. They make communities more robust and they build up the characters of the people in them. I learned at an early age that if someone helped me, I was expected to ‘pay it forward’.

But I’ll bet it’s not like that there any more. Now there’s all kinds of government assistance. Farm loan programs for buying machinery at low interest, subsidized disaster insurance, aid if you become ill, bankruptcy protection of farm equipment if you over-extend yourself and can’t pay, injury compensation, you name it. So why bother talking to your neighbors any more?
Now, if the alternative to this was starvation, you could say that there’s no choice. But if the alternative to big government social programs is the development of stronger community assistance and closer family bonds, coupled with higher personal charitable giving to non-profit organizations, then maybe that’s something we really should try.

And the fact that American’s already give more to charity than does the federal government suggests to me that private charity certainly has the potential to take up the slack from government.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is going in the opposite direction. It has unwound some of the changes Clinton signed for welfare reform, increased government aid to communities, nationalized student loans, and empowered groups that go into communities to basically agitate and rile up the population so they’ll vote for Democrats to bring them more federal charity.

I asked about “the Bush years” specifically because it was a time when there were large tax cuts coincident with fairly anemic economic growth (for most of the population). From your cite, the mention that fits that time frame limits itself exclusively to “high-income tax returns” (i.e., top 1%), where change in giving rate almost exactly matches change in income growth.

It should not be a surprise that, for those who are tremendously wealthy (i.e., top 1%), giving tracks with income growth. I’m curious about the rest of the population, first of all; second, again, the situation is exactly stacked against being adequate when it is needed most (i.e., during a recession).

No condescension meant; I thought I was doing a decent job at neutral presentation. Besides, my original objection was to emacknight; our discussion is predicated on his faults, not yours.

And yet again, that is neither what I’ve said, nor is it what I believe. Please direct such strawmen towards emacknight, not me.

I’ll note yet again, directed towards you specifically this time, that you’re whacking strawmen (particularly your use of “absurd” and “impossible”).

I’ll get to the rest of your wall of text if and when I get the chance, as work beckons…however, I’ll say that I’d love to be wrong in this case. And I’d note that demonstrating why would exactly answer my original objection about [pre|as]sumptions.

Yeah, that was a giant waste of money. Sematech is still going, but do they achieve anything?

And SEMATECH was a response in part to Japan’s vaunted MITI and the ‘Fifth Generation Project’, a huge government/industry collaboration that everyone thought was going to put the Japanese so far ahead that we’d never catch up. That collaboration was also an utter failure - their attempts to build artificial Intelligence and natural language engines were so clumsy that when the project was shut down after ten years of development they offered to give all the software away to anyone in the world - and no one wanted it. By then even small private companies in the U.S had achieved more than the entire Japanese project.

The Fifth Generation Project was a darling of the left-leaning techies I knew in college - they were sure that adding government to the mix to help plan and fund technology was the answer. After ten years of development, the Fifth Generation Project ended with nothing to show for it. It didn’t advance technology one iota. But it did take up a lot of resources and engineers that could have been building other things, and it burned through a lot of borrowed money.

The Fifth generation project is a perfect example of how central planning fails - a whole bunch of smart people got together and tried to predict where technology was going in the future, and what the best technologies were at the time. Then those ideas became the plan, and everyone worked to carry out ‘the plan’.

In the meantime, in the U.S. there were many plans. Each private company had its own ideas. Some failed, some succeeded. But this iterative process of trial and error caused us to converge on new technologies and software that a single committee of bureaucrats and industrialists couldn’t possibly imagine. And while a free market adapts with changing information, government plans don’t. Or at least, not very quickly.

The same thing happened to France with Minitel. France decided to leapfrog the world and use government to put an information terminal in everyone’s house. But that required settling on certain standards and technologies, which then became set in stone by government bureaucracy. In the meantime, the rest of the world was trying all sorts of things in the marketplace, and the winners built on the infrastructure and the losers went away and tried something else.

The end result for France was that Minitel caused them to lag the world in internet adoption for a long time, to the detriment of the French people, and the waste of untold taxpayer dollars.

If you don’t have time to read that, here’s the short form:

Private charitable giving reached an all-time high by 2007. $295 billion dollars. More than HUD, DOE, and HHS budgets combined.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sharing/giving-by-numbers-volunteer.htm
The chart isn’t super-clear on the year, but something caused a big rise around 2003.

Not that tax rates per se are the sole driving force; mainly, people give when they have money. Of course, low tax rates help them have money.

Government income drops during a recession, too. When needed, they borrow money, or (if they’re well-run) save up for such an occasion. Charities already do the same.

Just how much of that giving is actual delivered services to the needy? How much of it is building churches, missions and preaching?