That argument is assuming government directed 'philanthropy' is more efficient, better directed or somehow less supporting of the status quo than private philan

That argument is assuming government directed 'philanthropy' is more efficient, better directed or somehow less supporting of the status quo than private philanthropy. But private philanthropists got where they were by being good at management and effecting change in the world, whereas government employees did not, so it strikes me that it's likely to be the opposite - governments are less likely to do good things with the money, and more likely to support the status quo.