@AA

How dare you accuse me of being that far to the right!

@skybrook
You are a Celestia-darn socialist. Into the helicopter.

how about you give me some money, eh diamond?
oh so poor and helpless me.. needs bits for plush- i mean food, yeah food

@Background Pony #6CEB

I've heard it said before that "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal." Unfortunately their grandfather ruined the lives of enough people to make a gorillion dollars, so it's a messy situation. Who gets the money, the kid? That's not equal opportunity! The government? What we need is to dissolve the dangerous power of that fortune and return it to all of us. Leaving it with the kid and just hoping he won't commit the atrocities of his guardians is… not what I'd call ideal.

Society can handle a little evil. A few rich kids who wield enough power from their inheritance to get away with murder. But it's been accelerating without limit ever since the colonial era. Ever since international currency standards really. Money itself is just too exploitable. I want something that lets us get around being dependent on dollars when bankers print an infinite supply of them. Maybe start by getting to know the people on my block. Friendship is… one alternative to money that might help. That's why they make it so hard to make friends.

@skybrook
How about people who don't have paychecks at all? They turned eighteen and they inherited a gorillion dollars from Great-Grandpa. Everybody who was party to what Great-Grandpa did is dead. Are they allowed to make charitable donations, to support causes they think are appropriate, with the money? Is it philanthropy if they do?

they did it because they thought they were better at allocating funds for the greater good of mankind than the government,

To be entirely honest, if we're talking about the US government, I don't think the Carnegies and Rockerfellers started as many wars as our politicians did. Of course "I'm not as bad as the US government" isn't exactly a great achievement, on balance, when you look into the matter, either. And on the third hand (where'd I get so many hands, anyway?) in the modern world it's difficult to draw a bright shining line between the billionaire class and the government. Individuals who supposedly represent the people have been playing Stepin Fetchit for banksters for a very, very, very long time.

@AA

I take the view that they did it because they thought they were better at allocating funds for the greater good of mankind than the government, after they burned their workers alive, cooking them slowly to death in the name of efficiency. So p. much they were completely flipping insane. But… sorta well intentioned?

Philanthropists today are way more obviously evil it's true. Carnegie didn't… consider it a tax deduction to pledge to donate to charities and then never do so, for instance.

@Background Pony #3D97

Let's say you're working for a medical research institution, and you get a phone call from the philanthropist J.D. Rockefeller (or Bill Gates if you prefer). He tells you what you are going to study, what you are allowed to publish, all very obviously biased towards making people sicker and more dependent on him. If you refuse, he says, he'll regrettably have to benevolently (out of the goodness of his heart) donate his wealth to a different medical institution than yours, and you'll get shut down for lack of funding. What do you do?

@Background Pony #6CEB

Eh, charity's a bandaid in my opinion. We wouldn't need charities if the people donating to them weren't creating the conditions for them to be needed. But I don't think donating your paycheck makes you a philanthropist. You have to have employees, and justify their poor treatment because you are preparing to donate the wealth you extract from them to the greater good of humanity. Or, at least you have to claim to want to do that. Philanthropists must be "leaders" and any good leader isn't going to end up with extra funds to donate elsewhere while the people they lead struggle to survive.

Old fashioned philanthropists were comparatively good, even if you take the cynical view that they did it purely for PR. Modern "philanthropists" are engaged either in money laundering or promote "evil" charities like nonconsensual human experimentation and globohomo causes.

@Background Pony #3D97
Yeah, I have to ask the same question. What if somebody's a trust fund baby? Is it okay for him to give the money to charity or be a philanthropist then? Is he allowed?

@skybrook
well yea him specifically and many in real life did get their money from shitty worker abuse.

but how does that make giving away money as a concept evil. if you mean all these rich fags being fags as usual then yes I agree. but as a concept.. I can't see how it is evil. maybe I am just dense and this was already your meaning

@Background Pony #3D97

Why did he have that money in the first place? He was giving away his worker's wages.

@skybrook
like shit yea,

but how is giving away money inherently evil

@Background Pony #3D97

…do you know what Andrew Carnegie did to his steel workers?

@skybrook
giving away money evil?..

It is literally yours to speculate. Lawyers have spent more money convincing people of that than anything else in history. Also philanthropy is evil.