Michael Brown and the ethics of crowdfunding

In recent blogs, I've written of the inequality of opportunty for seekers of development aid funding, the gulf between our own humanitarian efforts and those of Cherie Blair when it comes to public funds, like USAID. I've also described our experience of the non-profit industrial complex which stifles bottom up inoovation.

Crowdfunding is a relatively new approach to raising funds for a social goal. There have been some spectacular success stories but for many it's a matter of simply not being sufficiently visible or well connected enough to make an impression. Hence the label of being a "high school popularity contest"

I was concerned to read today that following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, crowdfunding for the defence of Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown, has been able to raise considerably more than that which has been collected for Brown himself.

What does this tell us?  

One would imagine that a policeman whose actions in the course of duty result in the death of a civilian would be well supported by state funds in his legal defence, whereas a young black man might find legal aid harder to come by, if needed to defend himself from criminal prosecution. But Micheal Brown's memorial fund is not for that purpose.      

For the man who knows justice is already weighed against him, there;s a message from the community that reinforces the belief those with the upper hand want to keep things that way by whatever means possible, including crowdfunding.

Crowdfunding has often been used to create economic opportunity for the disadvantaged. In this case it's being used to maintain disadvantage.

.