I think the first point here—that the buyers “don’t need anyone’s permission” to purchase a “castle”—isn’t contested here. Other than maybe the ConcernedEA crowd, is anyone claiming that they were somehow required to (e.g.) put this to a vote?
I think the “right to spend one’s own money” in no way undermines other people’s “right to speak one’s own speech” by lambasting that expenditure. In the same way, my right to free speech doesn’t prevent other people from criticizing me for it, or even deciding not to fund/hire me if I were to apply for funding or a job. There are circumstances in which we have—or should have—special norms against negative reactions by third parties; for instance, no one should be retailiated against for reporting fraud, waste, abuse, harassment, etc. But the default rule is that what the critics have said here is fair game.
A feeling of EA having breached a “~promise[]” isn’t the only basis for standing here. Suppose a non-EA megadonor had given a $15MM presumably tax-deductible donation to a non-EA charity for buying a “castle.” Certainly both EAs and non-EAs would have the right to criticize that decision, especially because the tax-favored nature of the donation meant that millions’ worth of taxes were avoided by the donation. If one wishes to avoid most public scrutiny, one should make it clear that the donation was not tax-advantaged. In that case, it’s the same as the megadonor buying a “castle” for themselves.
Moreover, I think the level of negative externalities required to give third-party EAs standing to criticize is quite low. The “right to speak one’s own speech” is at least as fundamental as the proposed “right to spend one’s own money.” If the norm is going to be that third parties shouldn’t criticize—much less take adverse actions against—an EA entity unless the negative PR & other side effects of the entity’s action exceed those of the “castle” purpose, then that would seem a pretty fundamental shift in how things work. Because the magnitude of most entities’ actions—especially individuals—are generally an order of magnitude (or more) less than the magnitude of OP and EVF’s actions, the negative externalities will almost never meet this standard.
I 100% agree with you that people should be and are free to give their opinions, full stop.
Many specific things people said only make sense to me if they have some internal sense that they are owed a justification and input (example, example, example, example).
I almost-but-don’t-totally reject PR arguments. EA was founded on “do the thing that works not the thing that looks good”. EAs encourage many other things people find equally distasteful or even abhorrent, because they believe it does the most good. So “the castle is bad PR” is not a good enough argument, you need to make a case for “the castle is bad PR and meaningfully worse than these other things that are bad PR but still good”. I believe things in that category exist, and people are welcome to make arguments that the castle is one of them, but you do have to make the full argument.
I think the first point here—that the buyers “don’t need anyone’s permission” to purchase a “castle”—isn’t contested here. Other than maybe the ConcernedEA crowd, is anyone claiming that they were somehow required to (e.g.) put this to a vote?
I think the “right to spend one’s own money” in no way undermines other people’s “right to speak one’s own speech” by lambasting that expenditure. In the same way, my right to free speech doesn’t prevent other people from criticizing me for it, or even deciding not to fund/hire me if I were to apply for funding or a job. There are circumstances in which we have—or should have—special norms against negative reactions by third parties; for instance, no one should be retailiated against for reporting fraud, waste, abuse, harassment, etc. But the default rule is that what the critics have said here is fair game.
A feeling of EA having breached a “~promise[]” isn’t the only basis for standing here. Suppose a non-EA megadonor had given a $15MM presumably tax-deductible donation to a non-EA charity for buying a “castle.” Certainly both EAs and non-EAs would have the right to criticize that decision, especially because the tax-favored nature of the donation meant that millions’ worth of taxes were avoided by the donation. If one wishes to avoid most public scrutiny, one should make it clear that the donation was not tax-advantaged. In that case, it’s the same as the megadonor buying a “castle” for themselves.
Moreover, I think the level of negative externalities required to give third-party EAs standing to criticize is quite low. The “right to speak one’s own speech” is at least as fundamental as the proposed “right to spend one’s own money.” If the norm is going to be that third parties shouldn’t criticize—much less take adverse actions against—an EA entity unless the negative PR & other side effects of the entity’s action exceed those of the “castle” purpose, then that would seem a pretty fundamental shift in how things work. Because the magnitude of most entities’ actions—especially individuals—are generally an order of magnitude (or more) less than the magnitude of OP and EVF’s actions, the negative externalities will almost never meet this standard.
I 100% agree with you that people should be and are free to give their opinions, full stop.
Many specific things people said only make sense to me if they have some internal sense that they are owed a justification and input (example, example, example, example).
I almost-but-don’t-totally reject PR arguments. EA was founded on “do the thing that works not the thing that looks good”. EAs encourage many other things people find equally distasteful or even abhorrent, because they believe it does the most good. So “the castle is bad PR” is not a good enough argument, you need to make a case for “the castle is bad PR and meaningfully worse than these other things that are bad PR but still good”. I believe things in that category exist, and people are welcome to make arguments that the castle is one of them, but you do have to make the full argument.