4 ms·
If we have to rely on the philanthropy of the super rich to save us, we've already failed, since it means the super rich have locked up the money needed to save
by afterburner 8y ago
If we have to rely on the philanthropy of the super rich to save us, we've already failed, since it means the super rich have locked up the money needed to save us, and can dole it out at will.
If that money weren't locked up with the super rich, a lot of our problems would go away.
So yeah, perpetuating this system, and making it worse, isn't going to end well.
Besides, philanthropy is often merely a way to gain a political goal with a significant tax savings.
- tathougies 8y agoI mean... the exact same issue can be said of representative government.
- afterburner 8y agoWhat you said doesn't make any sense.
- tathougies 8y agoYes it does. Representative government has certain people make decisions on how public resources are spent. Every so often (but not so often as to have a direct say in anything) the people as a whole perform a check on their government. However, as it is representatives are the ones who make the decisions. The representatatives control vast sums of money that are doled out to individuals. However, representatives are themselves almost always of the upper classes. This is true regardless of whatever other minority groups the representatives may be part of. A welfare-based representative government means that the poorer classes do end up depending on the government. Thus, representative government in practice consists of rich people doling out money to help poor people who depend on it: the exact institution you criticize.
- afterburner 8y agoThis is false equivalence bullshit. Representatives can be voted out, and so they have to be responsive to that. Billionaires personally funding things don't have to be responsive to anything. That's the whole difference.