I've spoken to some people who claim that they don't give money to the homeless because they "know" what they're going to do with "their" money.
What you give is no longer yours. It belongs to the person you're giving it to. That person could put it in a trash can two seconds later right in front of you and it'd be legal. Because it's theirs.
I think the point is that, while the money is still theirs
(before the gift has been given), they have very firm ideas on what they want their money to be used for. They want their money to acheive "a", and not "b" - so if they believe that handing their money to a person would acheive "b", then they decide not to give "their" money away.
That's the decision they are making - whether to direct their money towards what would (likely be) "a" rather than "b".
I agree that once you HAVE given money, you have no further right as to what happens to that money. But until you do the giving, it is still yours. Like, I won't give to someone collecting for the preservation of scorpions because I don't like scorpions. If I DID give them money, they could spend it on scorpions and I'd have no say in it. But if I don't give it, they can't do it.
But can we legitimately chastise them for not understanding "give"? If our argument is "silly people don't know when money stops being theirs", can we then tell people what they should do with money that isn't in fact ours?