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
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?