This is a deft rebuttal of a criticism that funds given philanthropically would be better given democratically. However the argument, as I have often heard it, is not for greater democratic control over just those resources that are being given philanthropically but for greater democratic control over the resources that aren’t being given as well.
As you’ve argued, it’s unlikely that any given government would make better use of, say, $10m of philanthropically given money than an educated philanthropist acting in genuine democratic spirit. But if we broaden our scope and see that the $10m is just 10% of, say, $100m that said philanthropist could conceivably (however defined) have given away, and that our philanthropist has decided to devote $90m to continued private wealth hoarding and a paltry $10m to philanthropic causes, then we might start to think that government could have done a better job with it.
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.
This is a deft rebuttal of a criticism that funds given philanthropically would be better given democratically. However the argument, as I have often heard it, is not for greater democratic control over just those resources that are being given philanthropically but for greater democratic control over the resources that aren’t being given as well.
As you’ve argued, it’s unlikely that any given government would make better use of, say, $10m of philanthropically given money than an educated philanthropist acting in genuine democratic spirit. But if we broaden our scope and see that the $10m is just 10% of, say, $100m that said philanthropist could conceivably (however defined) have given away, and that our philanthropist has decided to devote $90m to continued private wealth hoarding and a paltry $10m to philanthropic causes, then we might start to think that government could have done a better job with it.
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.