I’m not disagreeing on the notion that she would be fine. And for the record, I am not a fan of glamourizing billionnaires at all. But someone who is poorer than you are (just the fact that you have acess to the internet suggest that stayistically many people in the world are worse off than you are) could say you would also be ‘fine’ giving away half your posessions.
My point is don’t hate the player, hate the game. We need tax increases on wealth to invest heavily in education, infrastructure, health, social security. The current distribution of wealth is, in my view, ethically indifensible. But it sounds entitled to me when people just hate on these donators instead of the system that creates them or the rich assholes to donate to industry lobby instead of people in need
So we should… praise them for their donation even though they know they are materially contributing to wealth inequality in their country?
Yes the rest of us are also part of a system of exploitation (and that’s bad and I hope you are all combating against it as best you can), but we’re much more beholden to it, seeing as how our actual survival requires full lifelong participation in that system.
If there’s anyone that could be considered “above capitalism” it’s the billionaires. They actually have some individual power to shift the rules of the game they know is crooked. Or at least not take take take take and still want praise for giving away a micron of a rounding error of their wealth.
I don’t think my argument was a straw man fallacy, I was merely illustrating my point. But I do get that it is not the same, you and Oprah. Also, I didn’t see you criticising the system, just the one person. But I am fine to agree to disagree.
I’m not disagreeing on the notion that she would be fine. And for the record, I am not a fan of glamourizing billionnaires at all. But someone who is poorer than you are (just the fact that you have acess to the internet suggest that stayistically many people in the world are worse off than you are) could say you would also be ‘fine’ giving away half your posessions.
My point is don’t hate the player, hate the game. We need tax increases on wealth to invest heavily in education, infrastructure, health, social security. The current distribution of wealth is, in my view, ethically indifensible. But it sounds entitled to me when people just hate on these donators instead of the system that creates them or the rich assholes to donate to industry lobby instead of people in need
Some players have enough wealth to make the rules of the game. So I have to disagree.
So we should… praise them for their donation even though they know they are materially contributing to wealth inequality in their country?
Yes the rest of us are also part of a system of exploitation (and that’s bad and I hope you are all combating against it as best you can), but we’re much more beholden to it, seeing as how our actual survival requires full lifelong participation in that system.
If there’s anyone that could be considered “above capitalism” it’s the billionaires. They actually have some individual power to shift the rules of the game they know is crooked. Or at least not take take take take and still want praise for giving away a micron of a rounding error of their wealth.
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game”
Uhhh, happy for ya money buckets, but people with that kind of money ARE the fucking game.
Bit of a strawman, there. I am criticising the system, not the people. These two are just emblematic of it.
I don’t think my argument was a straw man fallacy, I was merely illustrating my point. But I do get that it is not the same, you and Oprah. Also, I didn’t see you criticising the system, just the one person. But I am fine to agree to disagree.
So, what is the reason such people are so rich and have no obligation to help beyond what they choose? Oh yeah. The system of neoliberal capitalism.