What’s next, some news org wants Biden out, they don’t have a legit source, but a foreign source has dirt on him, now that’s cool cuz they want to change public opinion of Biden?

Was the pearl clutching around Biden’s son’s laptop material being illegally obtained just a flimsy excuse? [uh oh, it’s doxxing, it’s doxxing... suspend their Twitter, Jack are you listening?]

Public interest is the right threshold. Just because somebody has done something illegal, does not mean that their privacy is worthless. Likewise, hypocrisy is not illegal, but documenting the hypocrisy of the powerful is often in the public interest.

You can be a perfectly moral denteologian (that is, a person that believes in moral rules, not in moral objective functions) and be a billionaire.

A second possibility: you can be a utilitarian, and believe that positive sum trades should always be taken (untenable position as this is (1)) and think you are taking one such trade. That is the claim Elon Musk seems to be making: This money today will save human lifes (electric cars reducing climate change) and increase the future number of lifes worth living in the cosmos (spacex)

(1) On the untenability and self-destructiveness of "always take positive sum choices, even if they harm you"

1) living an American middle class life while children starve might be similarly morally reprehensible

2) Not killing oneself and donating ones organs (saves what? 10 lives?) might be similarly morally reprehensible

Retort from first year philosophy: "if this is the case, why aren't you donating most of your disposable to starving kids in africa? Surely that would have higher utility than buying yourself an iphone or macbook?"

Is this really the case? The wealth of most millionaires is probably mostly in bank accounts, but only once you have hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in one place are you able to coordinate megaprojects: space travel, vaccine manufacture, clean transport, chip fabs, Stuxnet...

The claim is that poor people’s use is better for society (positive externalities) not for the poor person. That billionaires are better at assuring that any negative impacts of their transactions are externalized, and insuring internalized gains, is clear, but not the point.

How do you know this is better than the billionaire providing a service to society that's so valuable, it made him a billionaire?

I don’t, and I’m not making the claim that it is.

I’m saying that the fact that billionaires get to be billionaires by a combination of ability and inclination at maximizing their personal benefits from transactions, while true, doesn’t provide even slight counterevidence to the claim it was offered to rebut.