Sorry. I had to bail out on the second page when the author wanted to pivot from "hey look, all these billions showing up to save the world!" to "the public has a right to know how these people made their money and why they're spending it the way they are"
No, we do not.
Then there was an argument that if these people hadn't have spent their money anonymously, the money would be available to the government to spend as it chose.
At that point I decided my 20 minutes were best spent somewhere on the net that had a higher caliber of analytic thought.
Why not? If I am rich enough to have my pick of the best researchers and doctors, and to divert their attention to a disease or condition of my choosing, then shouldn't there be some oversight of that?
Perhaps all that money could have been better spent on malaria or cancer, rather than a rarer condition.
I don't know why an arbitrary rich individual should be able to direct medicinal research better than a public body, and get the most benefit for humanity or, at a lower level, their fellow citizens,
You, and the parent of my comment, are not backing up your arguments.
I posted a reasoned comment which does not worship the power of private enterprise, and asserts that the public sphere is better at some things than private wealth.
This is not an outrageous and thoughtless idea, and it is not one that deserves a downvote simply for being expressed.
Many enterprises in history have been organized by governments instead of wealthy capitalists. It is not unacceptable to suggest that medical research is one of those areas that could be done better in this way.
Surely the inverse slope - "rich people should be allowed to spend arbitrary amounts of money on things that markedly affect the direction of society solely out of self-interest without any oversight" - is equally slippery?
Comments
Sorry. I had to bail out on the second page when the author wanted to pivot from "hey look, all these billions showing up to save the world!" to "the public has a right to know how these people made their money and why they're spending it the way they are"
No, we do not.
Then there was an argument that if these people hadn't have spent their money anonymously, the money would be available to the government to spend as it chose.
At that point I decided my 20 minutes were best spent somewhere on the net that had a higher caliber of analytic thought.
"No, we do not."
Why not? If I am rich enough to have my pick of the best researchers and doctors, and to divert their attention to a disease or condition of my choosing, then shouldn't there be some oversight of that?
Perhaps all that money could have been better spent on malaria or cancer, rather than a rarer condition.
I don't know why an arbitrary rich individual should be able to direct medicinal research better than a public body, and get the most benefit for humanity or, at a lower level, their fellow citizens,
That's a horribly slippery slope to just blunder on to.
You, and the parent of my comment, are not backing up your arguments.
I posted a reasoned comment which does not worship the power of private enterprise, and asserts that the public sphere is better at some things than private wealth.
This is not an outrageous and thoughtless idea, and it is not one that deserves a downvote simply for being expressed.
Many enterprises in history have been organized by governments instead of wealthy capitalists. It is not unacceptable to suggest that medical research is one of those areas that could be done better in this way.
Surely the inverse slope - "rich people should be allowed to spend arbitrary amounts of money on things that markedly affect the direction of society solely out of self-interest without any oversight" - is equally slippery?