skybrook
"@AA":/images/6558858#comment_15144
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":/images/6558858#comment_15139
Let's say you're working for a medical research institution, and you get a phone call from the philanthropist J.D. Rockerfeller (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":/images/6558858#comment_15143
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.
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":/images/6558858#comment_15139
Let's say you're working for a medical research institution, and you get a phone call from the philanthropist J.D. Rocke
"@Background Pony #6CEB":/images/6558858#comment_15143
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.