Technical terms such as “non-profit organisation” cannot generally be interpreted by just taking the common meanings of the words in English and deriving all sorts of associations from those.
For example, the Australian Tax Office has a classification “Not-For-Profit Organisation” (NFP) which is subdivided into Charities (with further distinctions within that such as Public Benevolent Institutions and Health Promotion Charities) and various other types of NFP such as clubs, community service, professional associations, and cultural societies.
The primary difference between these and other business entities is that these do not distribute profits to owners or members. They may make profits, and people can certainly “profit” in the common sense from their activities, but the profits (in the financial sense) must be retained within the organisation and there are restrictions on how assets may be distributed when being wound up.
Business laws and terminology in many other countries differ in details but are often broadly similar, still referring to financial profits since the legal treatment of those are what distinguishes such organisations from others.
“non-profit organisation” and it’s variant spellings, is not exclusively used as a ‘technical term’ even within the judicial system of the countries I’m familiar with, such as Canada and the U.S. I’m not familiar with Australia.
Outside of the judicial system in the vast majority of examples in English language popular media, literature, fiction, blogs, and so on, it refers to the general abstract concept, a specific organization, a signal, etc… As anyone reading can easily verify for themselves.
The primary difference between these and other business entities is that these do not distribute profits to owners or members.
The point of this essay is that some type of profit is in fact distributed to owners or members. Because profits are more than just monetary profits, hence the title.
As an aside, this is the second of two comments received so far, the views of each writer contradict in a highly noticeable way, having advanced diametrically opposed claims easily seen to be erroneous with a few spare minutes and access to a search engine. Generally I’ve considered the most controversial of my essays to be the best written upon reflection, so this is a promising sign that a core issue was touched upon.
Whether or not it is used as a technical term, it is in fact a technical term and some people are misunderstanding it. The ready availability of posts from confused people does not mean that “‘Non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist” as your post claims. It just means that perhaps the choice of terminology had some annoying side effects.
A search engine will likewise show you that there are millions of people misusing other technical terms and subsequently confusing themselves and others, much as your post demonstrates your own confusion about the actual meaning of the term.
If the term used for such organizations was instead “flarbles”, would you be happy to change the title of the post to “‘Flarbles’ unlikely to exist”? Or is it just the existence of the general English word “profit” embedded in the term that supports the post?
Would you likewise claim that “Set Theorists” are unlikely to exist because “set” is a term that refers to mathematical sets, certain groups of games of tennis, placement of items, the process of some types of liquid forming a solid (and so on), and nobody actually studies all of those things as part of their job?
In this case, people who read your claim “‘non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist”.
There definitely do exist organizations labelled as “non-profit” by various government bodies and legal bodies. Furthermore, while many people can’t necessary articulate the definition of the term in their jurisdiction, they are generally aware that there is one and that they can consult an expert if they ever need to determine whether an organization actually is a non-profit organization or not.
There are very few people who will believe that there is actually no recognized definition for the term and who believe that they should just try to guess one from the words used in the name.
So even on a “populist” theory of language, it’s still generally recognized that it does refer to some definition made by some regulating body as a technical term.
In this case, people who read your claim “‘non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist”.
So this is your personal opinion then?
As far as I’m aware you are the first and only person so far on LessWrong to have elaborated such a peculiar theory. The other commenter believes in the opposite, and most folks that I know of have in-between views.
There definitely do exist organizations labelled as “non-profit” by various government bodies and legal bodies. Furthermore, while many people can’t necessary articulate the definition of the term in their jurisdiction, they are generally aware that there is one and that they can consult an expert if they ever need to determine whether an organization actually is a non-profit organization or not.
There are very few people who will believe that there is actually no recognized definition for the term and who believe that they should just try to guess one from the words used in the name.
So even on a “populist” theory of language, it’s still generally recognized that it does refer to some definition made by some regulating body as a technical term.
The above section doesn’t seem to elaborate on your answer.
Are they meant to be extending your prior comment?
By the way, literally web searching for “non-profit organization” brings up plenty of sources that refer to governing bodies as primary sources for the meaning of the term.
I don’t know what exact search term you were using, or the results you obtained that contradict the idea that the term “non-profit organization” is defined by relevant government authorities or that the word “profit” in the term refers to anything other than the monetary meaning. The link in Wikipedia for “profit” in the definition goes specifically to its Profit_(accounting) page, for example.
By the way, literally web searching for “non-profit organization” brings up plenty of sources that refer to governing bodies as primary sources for the meaning of the term.
I don’t know what exact search term you were using, or the results you obtained that contradict the idea that the term “non-profit organization” is defined by relevant government authorities or that the word “profit” in the term refers to anything other than the monetary meaning.
How is this relevant to the parent comment?
The link in Wikipedia for “profit” in the definition goes specifically to its Profit_(accounting) page, for example.
If you are not familiar with Wikipedia title formatting standards, whenever there’s a bracketed term afterwards disambiguating, it is because there are other known usages common enough to be a potential source of confusion for the average Wikipedia reader.
Technical terms such as “non-profit organisation” cannot generally be interpreted by just taking the common meanings of the words in English and deriving all sorts of associations from those.
For example, the Australian Tax Office has a classification “Not-For-Profit Organisation” (NFP) which is subdivided into Charities (with further distinctions within that such as Public Benevolent Institutions and Health Promotion Charities) and various other types of NFP such as clubs, community service, professional associations, and cultural societies.
The primary difference between these and other business entities is that these do not distribute profits to owners or members. They may make profits, and people can certainly “profit” in the common sense from their activities, but the profits (in the financial sense) must be retained within the organisation and there are restrictions on how assets may be distributed when being wound up.
Business laws and terminology in many other countries differ in details but are often broadly similar, still referring to financial profits since the legal treatment of those are what distinguishes such organisations from others.
“non-profit organisation” and it’s variant spellings, is not exclusively used as a ‘technical term’ even within the judicial system of the countries I’m familiar with, such as Canada and the U.S. I’m not familiar with Australia.
Outside of the judicial system in the vast majority of examples in English language popular media, literature, fiction, blogs, and so on, it refers to the general abstract concept, a specific organization, a signal, etc… As anyone reading can easily verify for themselves.
The point of this essay is that some type of profit is in fact distributed to owners or members. Because profits are more than just monetary profits, hence the title.
As an aside, this is the second of two comments received so far, the views of each writer contradict in a highly noticeable way, having advanced diametrically opposed claims easily seen to be erroneous with a few spare minutes and access to a search engine. Generally I’ve considered the most controversial of my essays to be the best written upon reflection, so this is a promising sign that a core issue was touched upon.
Whether or not it is used as a technical term, it is in fact a technical term and some people are misunderstanding it. The ready availability of posts from confused people does not mean that “‘Non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist” as your post claims. It just means that perhaps the choice of terminology had some annoying side effects.
A search engine will likewise show you that there are millions of people misusing other technical terms and subsequently confusing themselves and others, much as your post demonstrates your own confusion about the actual meaning of the term.
If the term used for such organizations was instead “flarbles”, would you be happy to change the title of the post to “‘Flarbles’ unlikely to exist”? Or is it just the existence of the general English word “profit” embedded in the term that supports the post?
Would you likewise claim that “Set Theorists” are unlikely to exist because “set” is a term that refers to mathematical sets, certain groups of games of tennis, placement of items, the process of some types of liquid forming a solid (and so on), and nobody actually studies all of those things as part of their job?
Who decides the fact of whether or not something is a ‘technical term’, regardless of popular usage?
In this case, people who read your claim “‘non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist”.
There definitely do exist organizations labelled as “non-profit” by various government bodies and legal bodies. Furthermore, while many people can’t necessary articulate the definition of the term in their jurisdiction, they are generally aware that there is one and that they can consult an expert if they ever need to determine whether an organization actually is a non-profit organization or not.
There are very few people who will believe that there is actually no recognized definition for the term and who believe that they should just try to guess one from the words used in the name.
So even on a “populist” theory of language, it’s still generally recognized that it does refer to some definition made by some regulating body as a technical term.
So this is your personal opinion then?
As far as I’m aware you are the first and only person so far on LessWrong to have elaborated such a peculiar theory. The other commenter believes in the opposite, and most folks that I know of have in-between views.
The above section doesn’t seem to elaborate on your answer.
Are they meant to be extending your prior comment?
By the way, literally web searching for “non-profit organization” brings up plenty of sources that refer to governing bodies as primary sources for the meaning of the term.
I don’t know what exact search term you were using, or the results you obtained that contradict the idea that the term “non-profit organization” is defined by relevant government authorities or that the word “profit” in the term refers to anything other than the monetary meaning. The link in Wikipedia for “profit” in the definition goes specifically to its Profit_(accounting) page, for example.
How is this relevant to the parent comment?
If you are not familiar with Wikipedia title formatting standards, whenever there’s a bracketed term afterwards disambiguating, it is because there are other known usages common enough to be a potential source of confusion for the average Wikipedia reader.
So it’s in fact a counter-example for your claim.