Re:The Oppression of the Supermajority
by CharlesColeman on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @02:20PM
(#19313330)
> But a system of philanthropy is inherently biased insofar as since donors can and do choose charitable causes that match their own preferences.
Anand Giridharadas goes pretty deeply into that idea in this talk that he did at Google. I highly recommend watching it, I thought it was elucidating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
I want to read his book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" but I haven't gotten to it yet.
> But a system of philanthropy is inherently biased
More importantly, philanthropy suffers from the tragedy of the commons. It's in everyone's interest to act selfishly, and those who do not are put at a disadvantage and will be outcompeted.
Re:The Oppression of the Supermajority
by tathougies on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @02:28PM
(#19313409)
You're not wrong, but I'm trying hard to place this comment. The commenter you responded to said nothing about philanthropy. In fact, some interpretations of 'live and let live' would explicitly bar philanthropy.
The OP mentioned his giving to his community on a voluntary basis. That sounded like an operative description of philanthropy so I used that term.
The GP said "I also regularly give to my community, by choice."
Re:The Oppression of the Supermajority
by tathougies on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @02:32PM
(#19313453)
Yes, you're right. I see how you could interpret that as philanthropy.
Yup.
Of course there is the fine point that taxation is not voluntary, and that 'ideally' means 'never happens'. The presumption that the government will be 'more ideal' than a philanthropist is silly.
Uhm... I think you misunderstood me. Ideally cynically meant ‘never’ and “at least tempered by democratic representatives” was the most neutral but compact phrase I could come up with to describe what apparently happens when averaged across the parliamentary democracies of the world.
As for taxation not being voluntary, I never said it is. Nor should it be. Which billionaire would take on the cause of fixing potholes?
That’s part of the reason why American and increasingly European politics have become so factious.