
Is Philanthropy Anti-Democratic? - huihuiilly
http://bostonreview.net/philosophy-religion/rob-reich-philanthropy-anti-democratic
======
hirundo
> The dead have no property rights, Mill claims.

Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another die?
I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible
for the death.

If I make a contract with a mortuary to bury me (preferably) after my death,
should they be released from the agreement by my death? It seems like this
principle would also do serious damage to life insurance. Isn't a life
insurance policy a property right?

Companies and other organizations are sometimes bound by contracts that have
only been agreed to by people that are now dead. Is that an argument for not
allowing a company to be a party to a contract? Or do we say that a company is
a legal person for that purpose, and so since that "person" persists, so
should their contractual obligations? If so the issue of control by a dead
philanthropist is trivially fixed by incorporation.

I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be
relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that
contract are dead? Or does democracy nullify the principle? If the last
legislator who voted for a law dies, should it have any affect on the law?

With a philanthropy, maybe the solution is to simply transfer ownership to the
trustees, who then have the power to amend their own charter as they wish,
breaking any hold by a dead hand.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be
> relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that
> contract are dead?

Thomas Jefferson, it should be noted, believed something very similar. In a
letter to James Madison, having earlier in that letter recounted some (no
doubt less systematically gathered than a modern reader would prefer)
statistics and concluding from then that the mean remaining life expectancy of
a randomly chosen adult was in the neighborhood of 19 years, and having made
based on that arguments about the proper duration of validity of public debts
argues thus:

“On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual
constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living
generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they
please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and
consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the
sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their
predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave
them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no
longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end
of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of
right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the
power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had
been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection
admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not
an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so
perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained
fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot
assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various
checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession
of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them
astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments
arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is
much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.”

[https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-
documents/tho...](https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-
documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison)

~~~
tomjen3
>They are masters of their own persons...

Wise words, from a slave owner.

Better a hypocritical slave owner than not, of course, but I still have a
really hard time separating the arguments from the mind that created them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Wise words, from a slave owner.

Yes, the slave owner talking to us from beyond the grave about why we
shouldn't be ruled from beyond the grave by his dead hand and those of his
contemporaries—slave holders and their enablers, every last one—is quite wise.

> Better a hypocritical slave owner than not

Jefferson seemed to live in relative accord with his professed views on
slavery and issues surrounding it (which, yes, included that slavery was bad,
but also that “freeing” slaves unprepared to survive and sorry themselves as
free citizens was bad, and that the ideal solution was for the state to
acquire saves and train and then free them.)

Which is not to say that Jefferson's views (other than the “slsvery is bad”)
part weren't biased in favor of his own position and perhaps bolstered by some
measure of racism, but hypocrisy is less evident.

------
habosa
It took me a long time to be convinced of this, but the tax-advantaged nature
of philanthropy in the United States is regressive and anti-democratic.

The US government basically says: you have to give us X% of your money ...
unless you spend it first on something philanthropic. Well the problem is that
basically anything that doesn't make a profit can be a philanthropy. It can be
your church, your college, a soup kitchen, or an organization that wants to
give every stray dog a funny hat.

So if you suddenly become a billionaire, you can just set up a foundation and
"tax yourself" by donating the money to what YOU think should happen rather
than what the goverment (as elected by others) think should happen.

Furthermore the system of deductible donations benefits the rich much more
than the poor. My tax rate is about 40%. So if I donate a dollar to charity I
am effectively only losing $0.60. The government was going to take $0.40
anyway. If you make less money and your tax rate is only 20%, then it costs
you $0.80 to give $1 to charity.

Some good reading: [https://www.economist.com/briefing/2012/06/09/sweetened-
char...](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2012/06/09/sweetened-charity)

P.S. given that our system is what it is, I do donate quite a bit to charity
because I can afford it and because I see worthy causes around me.

~~~
batmenace
I agree that there is definitely a lot in terms of abuse when it comes to
philanthropy and, more specifically, thr foundations that are set up. As
always, those people who want to will find a way to cheat the system for their
advantage.

That being said, I don't think that it is really fair to extend this to
philanthropy as a whole. A good idea isn't bad simply because some people
abuse it. It just means that the rules need to be defined more clearly.

Tax deductions make sense to an extent as they encourage donation to
charities, and the principle does work. Not perfectly, but to an extent.

While there are obvious cases of charities being used to avoid taxes and the
like, there are also other examples. The Biill and Melinda Gates foundation is
one of the largest funding bodies of scientific reserach globally. Bloomberg's
1.8 billion dollar donation to John's Hopkins helps accessibilit for lower
income students.

Of course, philanthropies come with challenges. There's always opportunity
cost, there are always other areas of funding that could use the money. There
will always be people who diisagree with the use of the money.

Of course, there can be a motivation behind some funding. Bloomberg gave to
Hopkins because it's his alma mater. Is that completely fair? No. But let's
not pretend that the government in the US is completely unbiased with grant
allocation and funding...

Philanthropy should never be the only way money is given to worthwhile causes,
and not all causes that are funded will be seen as equally important as
others. That does not make it bad, though. Private donations should fill a
role that the covernment cannot, in that moment, fill. Perhaps that is funding
for smaller, experimental projects that have a higher risk of failing. Perhaps
it's projects that are beneficial for one state, but not another. Or projects
that do not align with the current goals of the administration (e.g. climate
change).

Rich people should not be allowed to use charities as a way to avoid taxes.
But not every rich person is evil. Some donations may genuinely be given
simply to help causes. Even if it's the soup kitchen. The rules imposed on how
these bodies are set up should be stricter, yes. But I think that foundations
can provide a good balance in funding allocation to the government.

~~~
habosa
I think philanthropy is great. It's the tax-advantage of large-scale
philanthropy that I object to.

The super rich should give anyway, even without the 40% break.

------
pdkl95
One of the best explanations why "philanthropy" and "novel (disrupting), win-
win solutions" for systemic problems is _highly_ anti-democratic (and inciting
class warfare) is Anand Giridharadas's recent talk[1] at Google[2]. I strongly
encourage everyone - _especialy_ anyone employed at Google - to watch it.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM)

[2] Google is the _perfect_ venue for this talk.

~~~
opportune
I don't have time to watch this, can anyone summarize?

~~~
CharlesColeman
It's been a while since I've watched it, but my recollection is of his main
point is that philanthropy by the winners (like the wealthy) pushes "win win"
change that _preserves or enhances the mechanisms that allowed those wealthy
people to win_ in the first place. However, if we _truly_ want to improve
society for everybody, we may need solutions where _the existing winners lose_
in some way. Philanthropy led by the winners carefully avoids that.

It's a really great talk, and I recommend you take the time to watch it. I
can't do the argument justice.

~~~
UncleEntity
> However, if we truly want to improve society for everybody, we may need
> solutions where the existing winners lose in some way.

So, basically, the broken window fallacy?

I don't doubt that philanthropists act out of their own self interest (as do
all rational humans) but forcing them to lose seems like just an extension of
a zero-sum game argument where someone has to lose in order for them to win in
their philanthropising (or whatever the proper word is).

~~~
JauntyHatAngle
Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like
it.

Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing
society a favour". So, damage to you = benefit to society, which is bunk.

This is saying, lets not be led by the nose by people who gain the most from
what we are doing - because while it (arguably) helps society a bit, society
could overall benefit a lot more from better balanced solutions that aren't
stymied by those seeking to reinforce their wealth/power.

A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their
window, that's balancing who gets what - which is what we do anyway, middle
class already loses when a big company finds a tax loop-hole, to use a trite
example.

~~~
UncleEntity
> A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking
> their window, that's balancing who gets what...

But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The
same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where
people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough
money to buy one of those things.

I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic
projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball
stadium down the street "for society".

------
drcube
Democracy is not a synonym for "good". Whether something is democratic or not
tells you very little about whether it is worth keeping. Most things are not
democratic, nor should they be.

~~~
yingw787
I agree with the notion that democracies aren't synonymous with "good", but I
disagree that things shouldn't be democratic. The sole purpose of democracies
is to make people's problems their fault. Most systemic issues we see today
have a root cause in people giving up their ability to vote -- electorally,
financially, or otherwise. Keeping things democratic means keeping people's
options open and legally, in writing, preserving each person's share in the
power pie. IMHO, that's a worthwhile goal in and of itself.

~~~
kijin
_Things_ shouldn't be democratic. _Governments_ should be.

Both corporations and charitable foundations often emulate democratic
governments in some ways, most notably in their shareholder and/or board
meetings. There's nothing wrong with emulating the good parts of democracy in
other suitable contexts. But I'm not sure whether it's worthwhile to emulate
them in every context.

Even when things are run democratically, it is sometimes better to limit
participants to those who are directly involved. Would you like some
democratic input from the general public as to what happens in your bedroom
between consenting partners, for example?

------
leepowers
Yes. The anti-democratic nature of philanthropies is a feature not a bug.

> His general argument was that endowments should be permitted, in some cases
> even celebrated, but that they should never be perpetual and that the state
> must always retain the right to intervene in a philanthropic endowment. His
> baseline conclusion: “all endowments are national property, which the
> government may and ought to control.”

Does this include the ACLU? It's been around for nearly 100 years, has a
massive membership, a massive budget, and is the recipient of multi-million
dollar endowments. The ACLU does important work advocating against government
misconduct and abuses. The ACLU _should_ operate in perpetuity. It provides an
important out of band check on government power, regardless of the popular
democratic sentiments of a given year or decade.

Property rights are the foundation guaranteeing the ACLU's independence. It is
the means by which the government encourages a diversity of institutions. By
declaring "all endowments are national property" Mills is undermining this
basis.

What Mills really had a problem with was the outsized influence of the church
in his time. And he works backwards from that state of affairs to come his
conclusions.

------
rednerrus
Allowing any one group of people to amass so much wealth and influence seems
anti-democratic.

~~~
penagwin
They aren't exactly handing it out to "spread the wealth", at least not in the
sense you're talking about. They'll still ensure they are ammassing money
don't worry.

~~~
ahoy
This is what drives me up the wall whenever Bill Gates comes up. His net worth
is double what it was a decade ago. He's not doing philanthropy, he's doing
investing.

~~~
nearbuy
He has also pledged to give 95% of his wealth to charity, so most of that net
worth increase should end up going to charity eventually.

~~~
JetSpiegel
After he is dead? Does it mean it is moral to kill him ASAP?

------
Frondo
Philanthropy in a general sense? No. People can give whatever they want.

The laws that allow so few to accumulate so much, when the rest of the world
has so little? Something seems off about that. Like the systems we've built
aren't really working very well, not for everyone (though they're working
great for a few.)

Counting on philanthropic efforts to replace services provided by government?
Absofuckinglutely. You've just replaced democratically-governed society with
"what a couple of rich guys think is a good idea for now". It's hard to be
less anti-democratic than that.

~~~
freedomben
Is democracy good? If something has democratic support does that make it
right/moral? There was democratic support for slavery in the US at one point,
something to keep in mind.

If democracy is not necessarily good and does not bestow moral standing, then
does the characteristic of being anti-Democratic automatically imply that it
is bad or wrong?

~~~
peterhadlaw
This is a helpful thought experiment that exercises what you're describing:
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft#How_many_men...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft#How_many_men?)]

~~~
CharlesColeman
> This is a helpful thought experiment

That "thought experiment" isn't really helpful. It just starts with a
particular morally-charged framing, and creates a mechanism to push that
framing forward towards a conclusion, while discouraging thought about any
other principles.

You could probably construct an infinite number of other "experiments" that
push towards an infinite number of different conclusions on any topic, like
"How many men...does it take to give you property rights? Do you own the car
if only you say so? What if a gang of five men say you own the car..."

~~~
UncleEntity
I would disagree...

I believe the point is to illustrate that you either have inalienable natural
rights or you don't -- which is usually the basis of the "taxation is theft"
argument -- i.e. you either own the produce of your labor or some other entity
owns it and allows you to keep a portion of it out of kindness or whatever.

Not arguing for or against just explaining the reasoning behind their
_reductio ad absurdum_ "thought experiment".

------
opportune
I see one of the main systemic issues with philanthropic foundations existing
in perpetuity is that they employ a large group of people with essentially no
financial incentives to spend the managed money properly, likely increasing
over time as the board gradually becomes removed from whatever good intentions
and directions the founders had (if they were ever anything other than a tax
strategy to begin with). So essentially you end up with a bunch of non-
productive white collar jobs parasitizing some managed fund as long as it
exists.

~~~
UncleEntity
As a counterpoint the Howard Hughes Medical Institute was basically a tax
dodging scheme up until Hughes died and the new board turned it into a full on
"societal beneficial" organization which has done inarguably good work.

------
afterburner
If we have to rely on the philanthropy of the super rich to save us, we've
already failed, since it means the super rich have locked up the money needed
to save us, and can dole it out at will.

If that money weren't locked up with the super rich, a lot of our problems
would go away.

So yeah, perpetuating this system, and making it worse, isn't going to end
well.

Besides, philanthropy is often merely a way to gain a political goal with a
significant tax savings.

~~~
tathougies
I mean... the exact same issue can be said of representative government.

~~~
afterburner
What you said doesn't make any sense.

~~~
tathougies
Yes it does. Representative government has certain people make decisions on
how public resources are spent. Every so often (but not so often as to have a
direct say in anything) the people as a whole perform a check on their
government. However, as it is representatives are the ones who make the
decisions.

The representatatives control vast sums of money that are doled out to
individuals.

However, representatives are themselves almost always of the upper classes.
This is true regardless of whatever other minority groups the representatives
may be part of.

A welfare-based representative government means that the poorer classes do end
up depending on the government. Thus, representative government in practice
consists of rich people doling out money to help poor people who depend on it:
the exact institution you criticize.

~~~
afterburner
This is false equivalence bullshit. Representatives can be voted out, and so
they have to be responsive to that. Billionaires personally funding things
don't have to be responsive to anything. That's the whole difference.

