[throwaway0a5e]

>If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers.

You just disagree with the things the Kochs choose to fund. You could have easily said Murdoch instead (or Bloomberg if you wanted to pick someone who's hate crosses party lines).

Were the government funding the causes these billionaires fund the causes would still be controversial. We just wouldn't have a single person to have the lion's share of the blame.

[frenchy]

That's kind of the point though. Whether you believe that decisions ought to be made by the people, or by whoever has the most money is sort of an axiomatic thing. It's not like we have any good way of testing which one is "better".

[munificent]

> You just disagree with the things the Kochs choose to fund.

Sure, and I'm also not a fan of Jeffrey Dahmer's taste in fine dining, but I don't think it is reasonable to chalk that up to a mere difference of appetite.

> Were the government funding the causes these billionaires fund the causes would still be controversial.

Were the government funding those causes we could stop funding them because they are horrible and people hate them.

[triceratops]

> We just wouldn't have a single person to have the lion's share of the blame

Correct. Then we'd only have the electorate i.e ourselves to blame.