Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If billionaires entrust their money to more or less random people for philanthropic objectives I rather have them be taxed higher and let a (somewhat inefficient) government decide how to invest the money.

At least I had a role in electing the government and can change my vote based on their performance.

> At least I had a role in electing the government and can change my vote based on their performance.

The real crux. You want control over what other people do.

If it's at the scale of society-level impact, yes, I'd like to have a vote. That's why I prefer to live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship. Don't you?

Give it to the government instead?

That's insane.

Live a few years here in Wisconsin, and then talk to me about how we should give the thieves in the government more money. Foxconn much? Better to choose a few good people and give it to them. Best part about the Bezos method is that all of us can also make a boatload of money and give it to people we trust to distribute it.

Under your proposition, all of us have to give it to people in government who we already know we should have zero trust for.

Im Not sure why you are being downvoted.

There's a lot of things I would rather other people do for my benefit and their detriment as well. Thank you for your contribution.

Why should you have any say in how Bezos spends his money? Do you accept when other people tell you how to spend your money?

Why should someone other than an elected official be allowed the power to manipulate legislation as corporate lobbies do?

It is not about money, it about money as a proxy for power over the country.

The guy you're talking to does not have enough money to affect disproportional change. It does not matter to anyone else what he does with it as it can't possibly infringe on their rights, unlike when corporations manipulate media and government.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact