5 ms·

Because our elected officials have been shown to be fantastic stewards of our money? Said no one ever. The truth is that this is a fantastic use of the money

Because our elected officials have been shown to be fantastic stewards of our money? Said no one ever. The truth is that this is a fantastic use of the money and no politician would ever have used it more effectively.

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
You’ve got the cause and effect the wrong way around.
digging 3y ago
> Because our elected officials have been shown to be fantastic stewards of our money? Compared to the billionaires who currently steward our money? Absolutely. For example, I just flushed a toilet and I'll never have to think about that shit again, except perhaps to marvel at how it may one day fertilize shade trees in my city.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 2rok 3y ago
  Our money? It's not your money. It's not my money. It's their money. Do something productive, and you may get rewarded too, rather than engaging in the politics of resentment and envy.
  - nicoburns 3y ago
    > It's not your money. > It's not my money. > It's their money. Only because our society is setup to grant it to them. It need not be that way. That billionaires deserve such outsized reward is dubious at best.
  - cdelsolar 3y ago
    All billionaires come from people whose wages have been stolen to some degree.
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      The degree is none.
silverquiet 3y ago
Those who champion federalism will often say that they believe that government power should be spread as widely as possible; that local control is best because it gives power to those closest to the problems. I see no reason why that should be limited to government; a billion dollars is a lot of power for one person to wield.
- nolongerthere 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - nolongerthere 3y ago
      Pretending that “those who champion” is somehow better than “so you’re” is just the height of elitism and condescension. Additionally, this comment is also disrespectfully condescending, using the third person, euphemism, and innuendo doesn’t make it any less rude, in fact it makes it worse, it shows you know what you’re doing is wrong but you’re gonna do it anyway and be insulting at the same time. Why not actually address the argument instead of impolitely calling me gauche.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > Those who champion federalism will often say that they believe that government power should be spread as widely as possible; that local control is best because it gives power to those closest to the problems. The counterpoint to this is zoning rules. Sometimes you actually want the people who are furthest away from local problems to set policy. There's no new housing in major metros because wealthy landholders vote in people who set policy to prevent construction. After all, more supply means lower home prices. Setting that policy at the top allows for global optimization - nobody in DC cares that a building throws a two inch shadow over your park for half an hour during the vernal equinox. The reality is both approaches have pros and cons. Ditto with individual direction of funds. There's no reason to think all individual directions of funds are local let alone globally optimal. An individual or two can use their money to halt progress like the Kochs do, and the Murdochs do. This one is great. However, one data point doesn't make a trend, and there's no reason to think this individual act is representative of directed contributions. That said this is a lovely gesture and I appreciate it.
munk-a 3y ago
I disagree - I think this act was amazing and great but it only happened because of one person's personal decision. Plenty of billionaires chose to spend their money in other ways and, while we could afford to freely educate everyone if we worked together, education is currently the source of a lot of financial stress. There's the old Churchill quote "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Autocracy is extremely effective in some circumstances and absolutely atrocious in most. The public should have some say in expenditures of this size - and if our current government has grown too corrupt to be trusted with that expenditure than that's a separate problem that we also need to solve. There will always be inefficiency and corruption - but the more eyes and transparency we have the more we can combat that corruption.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  My problem with relying on philanthropy is: What happens when the donor is not so wholesome, and instead donates their $1B to a terrible or deadly cause, like a group bent on hate, discrimination, erasing people's rights, ethnic cleansing or some other evil? Is that just as OK from the "let people do what they want with their money" point of view? What if a billionaire donated their fortune to a cause that would result in your suffering?

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

You’ve got the cause and effect the wrong way around.

digging 3y ago

> Because our elected officials have been shown to be fantastic stewards of our money? Compared to the billionaires who currently steward our money? Absolutely. For example, I just flushed a toilet and I'll never have to think about that shit again, except perhaps to marvel at how it may one day fertilize shade trees in my city.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
2rok 3y ago
Our money? It's not your money. It's not my money. It's their money. Do something productive, and you may get rewarded too, rather than engaging in the politics of resentment and envy.
- nicoburns 3y ago
  > It's not your money. > It's not my money. > It's their money. Only because our society is setup to grant it to them. It need not be that way. That billionaires deserve such outsized reward is dubious at best.
- cdelsolar 3y ago
  All billionaires come from people whose wages have been stolen to some degree.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    The degree is none.

silverquiet 3y ago

Those who champion federalism will often say that they believe that government power should be spread as widely as possible; that local control is best because it gives power to those closest to the problems. I see no reason why that should be limited to government; a billion dollars is a lot of power for one person to wield.

nolongerthere 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- silverquiet 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nolongerthere 3y ago
    Pretending that “those who champion” is somehow better than “so you’re” is just the height of elitism and condescension. Additionally, this comment is also disrespectfully condescending, using the third person, euphemism, and innuendo doesn’t make it any less rude, in fact it makes it worse, it shows you know what you’re doing is wrong but you’re gonna do it anyway and be insulting at the same time. Why not actually address the argument instead of impolitely calling me gauche.
arcticbull 3y ago
> Those who champion federalism will often say that they believe that government power should be spread as widely as possible; that local control is best because it gives power to those closest to the problems. The counterpoint to this is zoning rules. Sometimes you actually want the people who are furthest away from local problems to set policy. There's no new housing in major metros because wealthy landholders vote in people who set policy to prevent construction. After all, more supply means lower home prices. Setting that policy at the top allows for global optimization - nobody in DC cares that a building throws a two inch shadow over your park for half an hour during the vernal equinox. The reality is both approaches have pros and cons. Ditto with individual direction of funds. There's no reason to think all individual directions of funds are local let alone globally optimal. An individual or two can use their money to halt progress like the Kochs do, and the Murdochs do. This one is great. However, one data point doesn't make a trend, and there's no reason to think this individual act is representative of directed contributions. That said this is a lovely gesture and I appreciate it.

munk-a 3y ago

I disagree - I think this act was amazing and great but it only happened because of one person's personal decision. Plenty of billionaires chose to spend their money in other ways and, while we could afford to freely educate everyone if we worked together, education is currently the source of a lot of financial stress. There's the old Churchill quote "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Autocracy is extremely effective in some circumstances and absolutely atrocious in most. The public should have some say in expenditures of this size - and if our current government has grown too corrupt to be trusted with that expenditure than that's a separate problem that we also need to solve. There will always be inefficiency and corruption - but the more eyes and transparency we have the more we can combat that corruption.

ryandrake 3y ago
My problem with relying on philanthropy is: What happens when the donor is not so wholesome, and instead donates their $1B to a terrible or deadly cause, like a group bent on hate, discrimination, erasing people's rights, ethnic cleansing or some other evil? Is that just as OK from the "let people do what they want with their money" point of view? What if a billionaire donated their fortune to a cause that would result in your suffering?