Glen,
Intentional, but not distortion.
If they were advocating more funding to cancer research, then just as you
suggest we would want to see if they also gave philanthropically to support
cancer research. If they were advocating more funding to the arts, then we
would want to see what they gave to the arts (e.g., my Kennedy Center) example.
Many rich people behave in exactly this way; I've seen tons of rich people over
the years running those sorts of messages to good effect.
The parallel in this situation: If they were advocating more of their money be
taken in taxes and put into the federal general fund, we would want evidence
that they were voluntarily paying more taxes than they owe. Preferably, we
would want to see something in line with whatever tax policies they are
advocating be applied to people of their wealth level, but I'd be happy with
any sizable payment over what they currently owe under current IRS code.
Can we find evidence of a single one of them even claiming to have done that?
Not hard evidence that they did so, even just a claim to have done so. Has
anyone on here seen such a claim?
I obviously haven't done an exhaustive search, but I've been tracking rich
people talking about this individually or in groups for probably three decades
now, and I've never seen anyone openly claim to have volentarily paid the
amount of taxes they would owe under the system they claim to want applied to
them by force. I've never even seen someone talk about how the movement
inspired them to pay /_any_ /general taxes over what they owe within the
current system. It is pretty weird to publicly announce that you are only
willing to do the something you claim is morally right if you are forced to do
so by legislation. In what other context do we ever see those kinds of
statements?
<mailto:[email protected]>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:04 PM glen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It's not clear to me if EricC is accidentally or purposefully distorting
the message. In order for us to accuse the participants in Patriotic
Millionaires (PM) of *not* supporting any given cause, we'd need to look at
their individual philanthropy. Looking at the stances, lobbying, and messaging
of PM is inadequate.
E.g. If we took a look at an issue PM says is Good, a "value", and we
examine the donations of all the PM participants and found that either a) they don't
donate any of their money at all or b) they donate to everything except the values of the
PM, *then* EricC's rhetoric would have some traction.
Otherwise, what an org advocates is not, cannot ever be, identical to what
its members advocate.
I've done none of that work of comparing PM's advocacy/lobbying and its
participants' actions. Perhaps others have?
On 3/7/22 09:51, Eric Charles wrote:
> Pick a cause if you want, or just send your money to the government if
the
> point is that you think the government should have it. ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
>
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> A Javelin missile costs $175,203 according to Wikipedia. 4 years of
college
> education is cheaper than that at most institutions. *Any *millionaire
> could just cover one of those, if they thought that was the best use of
> their money. *Any *millionaire could cover 4 of them, and still have a
> significantly higher net worth than the median American under 40. We need
> to stop pretending otherwise. If someone has several million, they could
> cover a whole lot more and still be doing just fine.
>
> "Look, man, I think helping kids go to college is a morally crucial
> activity and that those who have an obligation to support it should do
> so... But I won't help with that unless I know a legislature is forcing
> lots of other people to help kids go to college!" Well.... ok.... but
> that's a pretty shitty position to take.
>
> Maybe you think it's so important that you want to help yourself, and
you *also
> *you think others should be forced to help. Sure. I don't like that
> position, but it is sensible, and you can morally ground it in all sorts
of
> ways. But no level of moral importance should exist as a category where
you
> won't help unless everyone else is forced to as well. Yes, people take
that
> position all the time. But it is a morally shitty position, and we should
> treat it that way.
>
> Phrased differently: Having the government pick up the slack when
> individual action is insufficient can often make sense. Claiming that
only
> government action should happen, and then acting as if that claim somehow
> relieves individuals from any obligation to live up to their purported
> moral values, is crap.
>
> If you think it is important to support local kids getting a college
> education, then step up. You are in absolutely no sense "a bum" or "a
> sucker" if you help someone afford a college education and your neighbor
> doesn't. That's not how moral action works. Not at all. The correct
> response to someone trying to act that way is to try to force them to
admit
> the obvious truth, which is that they have chosen not to support whatever
> the cause is that is in question.
>
> Again, if they *are *supporting the cause, and adding on top of their
> individual support a statement that they also think others should do
more,
> that's a much more defendable position. Statements like "I think the arts
> should be supported, which is why I donated $XX,XXX to The Kennedy
Center,
> while lobbying my federal congressperson for more tax support" is
perfectly
> reasonable, as is "I think we need to better support local kids going to
> college, which is why I provided 5 $X,XXX local-kid scholarships this
local
> high school graduates, while also talking with my state congressperson
> about upping state funding to state schools."
>
> Do a survey of the "Patriotic Millionaires" and ask them how much more
they
> paid in taxes than what they owed. My guess is that you would find $0 as
> the across the board answer. If it's not $0 across the board, certainly
the
> median will be $0.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 9:47 AM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> Let’s say it is not a box of cookies but a four year college scholarship
>> or a Javelin missile launcher. The millionaire might be able to pay
those
>> individually, but no one else. In that situation there is no sales for
the
>> individual girl scouts to perform. At best a few heroic medium-sized
>> donations.
>>
>> Some purchases will be out of reach without spreading the cost around,
>> even over thousands of millionaires.
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2022, at 6:04 AM, Eric Charles <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Marcus,
>> Let's say you have a neighbor who's always talking about wanting to
>> support the girl scouts, and who even goes so far as to set up a web
page
>> about how important it is to support the girl scouts, and pays to have
>> signs printed and distributed around town about how important it is to
>> support girl scouts. You have a cousin in the girl scouts, so you send
her
>> over with the girl-scout cookie order form. The neighbor takes a look at
>> the forms and tells your cousin "While I *do *think I should support
girl
>> scouts, I am not going to give you any money unless everyone else in the
>> neighboorhood is forced to give you money too. Don't ask me to be a
chump."
>>
>> What would we make of that?
>>
>>
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 11:13 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Facebook had advertisements on TV for a few months talking about their
>>> efforts to review content for fake news. They advocated government
>>> regulation. Commonality being that a taxation or regulation impacts
them
>>> and their competitors in the same way, so their effective power and
>>> influence won’t be negatively impacted. “Don’t ask me to be a chump.”
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2022, at 8:02 PM, Eric Charles <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank,
>>> That all seems 100% positive to me.
>>>
>>> Do you also routinely publicly complain about how legislatures are lax
in
>>> not forcing you to do more of that sort of thing, because you strongly
>>> think that you should do more, but are unwilling to without the
government
>>> forcing you to?
>>>
>>> THAT is what the Patriotic Millionaires are doing.
>>>
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 9:43 PM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I probably shouldn't volunteer to be a case in your argument but...
>>>>
>>>> I do make donations to universities and a church. Today my wife and
>>>> grandson Matthew assembled packages of hygiene products for Ukrainian
>>>> refugees which included things like towels, toothpaste, toothbrushes,
soap,
>>>> shampoo etc. This was done at United Church of Santa Fe. As for
financial
>>>> contributions we spend $20k per year for tuition at Matthew's school
which
>>>> is a Montessori school for kids with executive function problems.
There
>>>> are a number of scholarship students whose families wouldn't be able
to
>>>> send their kids there without help.
>>>>
>>>> The church group put together 137 packages this morning. We donated
>>>> funds for the purchase of some of the stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Melinda Gates said that if you're a billionaire you can donate half of
>>>> your assets without any impact on your lifestyle. But that's a
different
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Frank C. Wimberly
>>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>>>
>>>> 505 670-9918
>>>> Santa Fe, NM
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022, 7:24 PM Eric Charles <
>>>> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While some of the goals of groups like "Patriotic Millionaires" are
>>>>> admirable, I can never get past the blatant hypocrisy of it all.
Maybe
>>>>> "hypocrisy" isn't exactly the right term. You could also see the part
>>>>> that bugs me as a bizarre worship of the benefits of authority over
>>>>> individual choice. Let me rephrase their primary claim: "I, as a rich
>>>>> person, recognize that I really *should *give more of my money to
>>>>> certain causes, but I adamantly refuse to do so unless forced to do
so by
>>>>> the federal legislature."
>>>>>
>>>>> What is anyone really to make of that position? Is it any different
>>>>> than trying to look virtuous by saying that you know you should stop
using
>>>>> child labor in your mine, while also publicly refusing to stop
unless the
>>>>> government makes you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:08 PM glen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, I'm either procrastinating or unclear on how best to do
>>>>>> actual work today because here is yet another thing I meant to talk
about
>>>>>> with someone, anyone, awhile back:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://patrioticmillionaires.org/about/
<https://patrioticmillionaires.org/about/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A salon participant recently asked whether "greed" was our most
>>>>>> nefarious trait as a species. It's a great question for sparking
>>>>>> discussion. My answer was that the most nefarious trait of *all*
species is
>>>>>> myopia, the inability to reason over externalities, from pond scum
to the
>>>>>> Trust <https://raised-by-wolves.fandom.com/wiki/Trust
<https://raised-by-wolves.fandom.com/wiki/Trust>>. But to
>>>>>> de-emphasize what people think of as "greed", I said "Trying to
ensure you
>>>>>> have enough money to live out your life in relative comfort is not
greed.
>>>>>> Greed is, after acquiring billions of dollars, you feel the need to
acquire
>>>>>> more billions of dollars."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found Patriotic Millionaires prior to that conversation. And it
>>>>>> seems legit ... a set of outwardly greedy people who recognize
limits to
>>>>>> their greed ... a recognition that there's a spectrum of merit,
some luck,
>>>>>> some effort, some systemic infrastructure, etc. Overall,
[m|b]illionaire
>>>>>> philanthropy (and especially effective altruism) seem like jokes to
me,
>>>>>> very postmodern jokes. "Here, let me given you a billion dollars
without
>>>>>> fundamentally rewriting your genetic code." Pffft. Give anyone
enough money
>>>>>> and you'll corrupt them fundamentally, often against their will.
>>>>>> Philanthropists know this. Effective Altruism is an oxymoron. You
can't
>>>>>> both be coercive and altruistic at the same time. >8^D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I'd welcome any opinion on Patriotic Millionaires.
