2 ms·

As a thought-experiment, suppose you have a society in year X in which a substantial majority of people are opposed to putting resources into some project. Tim

As a thought-experiment, suppose you have a society in year X in which a substantial majority of people are opposed to putting resources into some project. Time passes, it is now year Y and an individual has managed to amass control over sufficient resources to at least begin this project. More time passes, it is now year Z and the project requires further investment. The individual who initiated it seeks public funding to continue the work? 1. is it appropriate in a democratic society that an individual can direct resources on a large scale into projects rejected by most people in that society? 2. should the society consider funding the continuation of the project? If the answer to (1) seems immediately clear to you, consider your answer in the case that the project is "Invade our largest neighboring country" or "Develop new bioweapons that will only affect people of a certain genetic makeup" or even, somewhat realistically, "Develop ways to burn fossil fuels on sufficient scale to alter the composition of the atmosphere". What is the qualification possessed by the very rich, other than "well, they're rich", that should entitle them to make such decisions?

rockemsockem 3y ago
Qualifications aren't in play here. It's effectively random capital allocation. So they have been randomly entitled to those decisions. This seems far better than having a single entity to do so. A majority of Americans disapproved of the Apollo program. So the government does not avoid doing unpopular things. I whole heartedly agree with 1. Society in aggregate doesn't support all the things that would benefit it. In the case of 2, if society has suddenly decided that in fact it does support the project from 1 now, then yes, it should of course fund it. And this actually really demonstrates the value of private investment. A project can be started that most people don't think is worthwhile and then it can show benefits and the general population can support it further. That's wonderful. I don't recall proposing no government. Those first two were illegal and the government willingly ignored the third in the past, so IDK why you think the government would have done differently.

rockemsockem 3y ago

Qualifications aren't in play here. It's effectively random capital allocation. So they have been randomly entitled to those decisions. This seems far better than having a single entity to do so. A majority of Americans disapproved of the Apollo program. So the government does not avoid doing unpopular things. I whole heartedly agree with 1. Society in aggregate doesn't support all the things that would benefit it. In the case of 2, if society has suddenly decided that in fact it does support the project from 1 now, then yes, it should of course fund it. And this actually really demonstrates the value of private investment. A project can be started that most people don't think is worthwhile and then it can show benefits and the general population can support it further. That's wonderful. I don't recall proposing no government. Those first two were illegal and the government willingly ignored the third in the past, so IDK why you think the government would have done differently.