Arc vs. UN: Who’s more beneficial?
A fully funded United Nations would be great for the world. They could make a huge dent in world poverty, help human rights and make a lot of people better off. The only problem with this plan is that these people would then become reliant on this aid and it basically becomes another charity. Using social enterprise we can make these people think for themselves and help them help themselves.
Giving people money to help them survive is only good until they run out of money again. This becomes a never ending cycle. Teaching them how to make money themselves will make this cycle unnecessary. When everyone is self sufficient and isn’t completely reliant on donations to survive it improves the quality of life for everyone involved. It’s like the old saying: “Give a man a fish and he’ll have food for one night. Teach a man to fish and he’ll have food for life.”
It would be great for the UN to be able to bail out everyone in poverty but poverty is a never ending process. Teaching people how to get themselves out of poverty is cheaper, more effective, provides lasting results and could easily produce a positive ripple effect amongst the community. Also, the building of business in other countries combined with the experience gained by students could create a lasting bond that could produce business for people in Canada as well. Therefore, the UN could temporarily help many people in need, but the Arc and social enterprise helps not only the people in need but many others as well with lasting results.