|
|
|
|
|
by counterpoint1
2003 days ago
|
|
You didn't elect Bill Gates... so he shouldn't spend his money to make the world better? I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Is there anything in my above comment you actually disagree with? It seems like you're just advocating for 100% socialism where individuals don't have private assets. Suppose you have $100. You go to the grocery store and have lots of choices, you can buy basic groceries to feed yourself for the week for $50 and then give $50 to research to a rare disease which impacted a family member, or you can spend the full $100 at the grocery store buying brand name prepared foods. Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to make the choice between those? Are you saying the first person is doing something bad by giving their money to medical research instead of spending it? |
|
Exactly.
> Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to make the choice between those?
No, but if they have "extra money", the most moral thing to do is not choose the good cause, but contribute it to the general charity fund to be democratically disbursed.
> Are you saying the first person is doing something bad by giving their money to medical research instead of spending it?
No, I'm not arguing the relative merits of mosquito nets vs Gucchi bags. If you think this is a such a 1 dimensional optimization problem with 0 externalities or higher order effects, we're not going to have a very productive conversation.