Is the argument actually “against” philanthropy though? As I read the original content, the argument is for greater democratic scrutiny of large philanthropic gifts, as well as potential measures to reduce inequality generally and the elimination or minimisation of certain tax breaks, which is a much narrower debate.
I’ve not really seen a serious argument that philanthropy should be done away with. In fact, I think the argument is really more about failures in democracy than failures in philanthropy—democracy’s arguable failure to provide basic needs (thus charitable giving having to pick up the slack) and the influence of money in policy and politics.
Perhaps, but that’s just an argument for higher taxes (which I support), not an argument against philanthropy.
Is the argument actually “against” philanthropy though? As I read the original content, the argument is for greater democratic scrutiny of large philanthropic gifts, as well as potential measures to reduce inequality generally and the elimination or minimisation of certain tax breaks, which is a much narrower debate.
I’ve not really seen a serious argument that philanthropy should be done away with. In fact, I think the argument is really more about failures in democracy than failures in philanthropy—democracy’s arguable failure to provide basic needs (thus charitable giving having to pick up the slack) and the influence of money in policy and politics.
My general impression of e.g. Giridharadas is that, right now, he would very much prefer charitable donations to go to the government instead.