4 ms·

You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either: (a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a

You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either: (a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or (b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down. Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US Government is a more effective way to generate positive impact in the world than personal charitable donations. If I could pay my taxes to Bill Gates I would – my tax dollars would be used to eradicate polio or malaria, rather than on bureaucracy and starting wars.

andrepd 6y ago
You "concede" that (a) is false? That's quite a strong claim. At least with "the government" managing it, there's at least some degree of democratic control, accountability, scrutiny, and influence. When that management is left to private enterprise, that's not the case.
- headmelted 6y ago
  Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is. That's dangerous territory. I'm not saying I have a better idea, I don't, but democracy has been the driving force behind some pretty heinous stuff over the centuries (most obviously the resistance to equality of race, gay rights and universal suffrage). It's just less terrible than the alternatives that exist in the world today (e.g. dictatorship). At least in giving your money to a Buffett, a Gates or a Feeney you have some evidence that they intend to put it to good use.
  - shadowfiend 6y ago
    > Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is. Only insofar as you're getting into a debate about how morally right it is _compared to billionaires and/or corporations spending the same money_.
nicoburns 6y ago
I certainly believe (a), but there is a 3rd option (c) I believe in direct wealth distribution (e.g. via a basic income) and that you believe 100m people with $10 will spend that money in a better way than 1 person with $1bn.
- sjtindell 6y ago
  As someone who leans towards a general rule of government == inefficient but doesn’t necessarily like the logic of “billionaire individuals will allocate it better”, I really like your option C re-frame here.
  - Applejinx 6y ago
    Yes. I'm far less worried about government == inefficient (I've learned too much about AI and the genetic algorithm to have faith in human-based optimization strategies, and this is one reason I'm enthusiastic about population-based optimization along Basic Income lines) but possibly even more offended by the logic that specifically billionaires will allocate wealth better. I feel like the very existence of billionaires demonstrates that they are a self-selecting pool of abusers and/or criminals running exploits that place their interests above the system they're in. Even the idea of 'the wealthy allocate money better' is ridiculous. Towards what, themselves? It's like saying cancer allocates body resources better, because cancer can get into a position where it conclusively 'wins'.
- andi999 6y ago
  (d) I believe 1 person will spend $1bn much better than 100m will spent $10.
chrisdirkis 6y ago
But you've got to aggregate a) over all the billionaires, not just the ones giving. We're not comparing Bill Gates to the US Govt for impact per dollar, we're comparing all US billionaires vs the US Govt.
Aeolun 6y ago
If you give more money to the government, doesn’t that implicitly mean you are giving/donating about 15% of that money to the military industrial complex?
- GreenWatermelon 6y ago
  Then vote for officials who wont put that money into the military industrial complex. If you live in a real democratic country, then you have no excuse. YOU* chose that government. * obviously a generalization, but in the end enough people chose that outcome.
chillwaves 6y ago
Billionaires act against the interest of the working class more than they act in favor of it. That's how they became billionaires.
- Applejinx 6y ago
  Billionaireness is profoundly extractive by definition. Leave class out of it and billionaires inherently benefit themselves against any and every system they are in, and that's including other billionaires (they're exceedingly competitive). That means that billionaires also act against the interests of the donor class as a matter of course. If they were not the very definition of unaccountable power, you wouldn't see anybody defending them or their typical behaviors.
Rapzid 6y ago
You are forgetting or ignoring the damage to society caused by multi-generation accumulation of wealth and the consolidation of power that arises from that. These were the primary concerns when the founding fathers were debating estate tax..
raxxorrax 6y ago
That is quite a short sighted and funny evaluation. It is so benignly restricted since it excludes the possibility of charity and government funding can have a positive impact. Instead it is some fight against good and evil. I don't know what it has to do with Christianity, but you are free to visit a church, maybe they can tell you something about the gospel you linked.

andrepd 6y ago

You "concede" that (a) is false? That's quite a strong claim. At least with "the government" managing it, there's at least some degree of democratic control, accountability, scrutiny, and influence. When that management is left to private enterprise, that's not the case.

headmelted 6y ago
Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is. That's dangerous territory. I'm not saying I have a better idea, I don't, but democracy has been the driving force behind some pretty heinous stuff over the centuries (most obviously the resistance to equality of race, gay rights and universal suffrage). It's just less terrible than the alternatives that exist in the world today (e.g. dictatorship). At least in giving your money to a Buffett, a Gates or a Feeney you have some evidence that they intend to put it to good use.
- shadowfiend 6y ago
  > Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is. Only insofar as you're getting into a debate about how morally right it is _compared to billionaires and/or corporations spending the same money_.

nicoburns 6y ago

I certainly believe (a), but there is a 3rd option (c) I believe in direct wealth distribution (e.g. via a basic income) and that you believe 100m people with $10 will spend that money in a better way than 1 person with $1bn.

sjtindell 6y ago
As someone who leans towards a general rule of government == inefficient but doesn’t necessarily like the logic of “billionaire individuals will allocate it better”, I really like your option C re-frame here.
- Applejinx 6y ago
  Yes. I'm far less worried about government == inefficient (I've learned too much about AI and the genetic algorithm to have faith in human-based optimization strategies, and this is one reason I'm enthusiastic about population-based optimization along Basic Income lines) but possibly even more offended by the logic that specifically billionaires will allocate wealth better. I feel like the very existence of billionaires demonstrates that they are a self-selecting pool of abusers and/or criminals running exploits that place their interests above the system they're in. Even the idea of 'the wealthy allocate money better' is ridiculous. Towards what, themselves? It's like saying cancer allocates body resources better, because cancer can get into a position where it conclusively 'wins'.
andi999 6y ago
(d) I believe 1 person will spend $1bn much better than 100m will spent $10.

chrisdirkis 6y ago

But you've got to aggregate a) over all the billionaires, not just the ones giving. We're not comparing Bill Gates to the US Govt for impact per dollar, we're comparing all US billionaires vs the US Govt.

Aeolun 6y ago

If you give more money to the government, doesn’t that implicitly mean you are giving/donating about 15% of that money to the military industrial complex?

GreenWatermelon 6y ago
Then vote for officials who wont put that money into the military industrial complex. If you live in a real democratic country, then you have no excuse. YOU* chose that government. * obviously a generalization, but in the end enough people chose that outcome.

chillwaves 6y ago

Billionaires act against the interest of the working class more than they act in favor of it. That's how they became billionaires.

Applejinx 6y ago
Billionaireness is profoundly extractive by definition. Leave class out of it and billionaires inherently benefit themselves against any and every system they are in, and that's including other billionaires (they're exceedingly competitive). That means that billionaires also act against the interests of the donor class as a matter of course. If they were not the very definition of unaccountable power, you wouldn't see anybody defending them or their typical behaviors.

Rapzid 6y ago

You are forgetting or ignoring the damage to society caused by multi-generation accumulation of wealth and the consolidation of power that arises from that. These were the primary concerns when the founding fathers were debating estate tax..

raxxorrax 6y ago

That is quite a short sighted and funny evaluation. It is so benignly restricted since it excludes the possibility of charity and government funding can have a positive impact. Instead it is some fight against good and evil. I don't know what it has to do with Christianity, but you are free to visit a church, maybe they can tell you something about the gospel you linked.