3 ms·
>Money is power and power comes with moral responsibility. I don't know if I agree with that. Are they actually qualified to be wielding that much power? Maybe
by roncesvalles 4y ago
>Money is power and power comes with moral responsibility.
I don't know if I agree with that. Are they actually qualified to be wielding that much power? Maybe it's better to just let them spend it on personal luxury or passive philanthropy than to have them start twiddling society's levers just because they have a strong urge to "do something".
- thundergolfer 4y agoYou think directing your massive fortune towards spending on luxury goods isn't in itself "twiddling society's levers"?
- kubb 4y agoYeah, you don't build a yacht in isolation, you need labor, resources, it has a cultural and environmental impact. Whatever you do with so much dough is gonna have consequences, there's no staying neutral.
- roncesvalles 4y agoIt's not the same because it's within the bounds of what the economy "wants" you to do. It's an option that's available, instead of modifying the fabric of society to create an option that was previously unimaginable.
- thundergolfer 4y agoI think that's a completely broken idea of how an economy works. There's no neutral position where your cooperating with an economy "wants".
- kubb 4y agoThey're not qualified, but they wield it anyway.
- PoignardAzur 4y agoBillions of dollars are billions of dollars that could be spent building schools, housing the homeless, feeding starving people, etc. Saying that it's better that these people starve, freeze and die because of a vague fear that Man shouldn't meddle with certain things and spending on personal luxury and yachts is the better option seems like philosophical lazyness.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- roncesvalles 4y agoOr doing Koch Brothers stuff.