5 ms·
Not GP, but first off, if we're relying on charity to ensure voting rights, something has already gone horribly wrong. Secondly, as I've stated elsewhere, any
by karmajunkie 8y ago
Not GP, but first off, if we're relying on charity to ensure voting rights, something has already gone horribly wrong.
Secondly, as I've stated elsewhere, any charity or foundation ought to be required to get buy-in in the turn of new funds to keep operating. If it's truly a social good, that should be pretty easy.
Let's turn your example around: what about a foundation founded in 1910 who's purpose is to protect the family unit by preventing women's suffrage? Should they be able to operate in perpetuity without additional support from the generations whose lives their work affects?
- strictnein 8y agoYou're repackaging the original argument by citing a make-believe group that doesn't exist. > "Should they be able to operate in perpetuity without additional support from the generations whose lives their work affects" Yes. Bad ideas should still be allowed to exist. You seem to disagree, and I'm sure you've probably assumed that when the lists of good and bad ideas are made, you'll be the one doing that.