|
|
|
|
|
by KirinDave
5084 days ago
|
|
I would agree it is rational, if most people who try to make a lot of money via said "negative externalities" succeed and then become philanthropists of note. Very few people succeed to the degree that Bill Gates has. Fewer still put their money to the good uses Bill and Melinda have been espousing. So while it is possible to end up with a positive outcome, these outcomes represent a minority. So no, it's not particularly rational. It sort of assumes you can guarantee things you have very little control over. |
|
You can't seriously argue that the consequences of creating+controlling a software patent (while advocating against software patents) are always net negative. All you have is your "if we all did our part" Kantian argument, which I respect, but decline to follow.