I guess the obvious question is: Where do you draw the line regarding who to include in “the community”, why, and how does it affect the results?
An explicit swap is very clean and the counterfactual is known. Could they make a non-official, un-enforcable deal (I am very much not an expert on this at all and much less a lawyer!)?
Thinking about how ones situation impacts effective opportunities is also reasonable [1], but who is to say that they have not already assessed their specific viable options and are still convinced that their preferred choice is the best? People want to use their donations to “vote” and express an opinion, and that’s probably valuable?
[1] I suspect this is relatively common among people donating to underfunded areas in Animal welfare.
I guess the obvious question is: Where do you draw the line regarding who to include in “the community”, why, and how does it affect the results?
An explicit swap is very clean and the counterfactual is known. Could they make a non-official, un-enforcable deal (I am very much not an expert on this at all and much less a lawyer!)?
Thinking about how ones situation impacts effective opportunities is also reasonable [1], but who is to say that they have not already assessed their specific viable options and are still convinced that their preferred choice is the best? People want to use their donations to “vote” and express an opinion, and that’s probably valuable?
[1] I suspect this is relatively common among people donating to underfunded areas in Animal welfare.