So I disagree with this post on the object level, but I more strongly object to...something about the tone, or the way in which you’re making this critique?
First, the title: ‘The EA community does not own its donors’ money’. idk—I bite the bullet and say that while the EA community of course does not legally own its donors’ money, the world at large does morally have claim to the wealth that, through accidents of history, happens to be pooled in the hands of a few. I legally own the money in my bank account, but I don’t feel like I have some deep moral right to it or something. Some of it comes from my family. Some of it does come from hard work… but there are lots of people who work really hard but are still poor because they happen to have been born in a poorer country, or lacked other opportunities that I had. That’s why I give away a lot of my money—I don’t think I have “claim” to all my money, just because it happens to be in my bank account.
Second, the headings: ‘How would this happen?’ and ‘Can you demand ten billion dollars?’ If someone has proposed a new way of doing things, it’s reasonable to ask for details. But the fact that details don’t already exist—at an early stage! - should not be grounds for critique. Compare:
”Can you demand that slave owners free their slaves?” ″What, are you just going to make people hire women for the same jobs as men?”
You are allowed to say ‘the world is suboptimal as it is; it would be better if it were different’ without having a detailed theory of change for how you get there! You can come up with that when you have more support for the broad proposal—many hands make light work!
I also don’t experience a moral conviction about my ownership of my bank account, but I understand there’s a lot of variance about this across the population and the differing intuitions here have caused society and history a great deal of stress. I guess I ascribe most of my success to birth lotteries and people who feel moreso like they had to grind and face adversity would be likely to feel like their ownership over their resources is a morally valid matter.
Thank you for given voice to this perspective. I’m frustrated it took this much scrolling through the comments to find someone who addressed the fairly odd framing the OP took.
I think it should really be turned on its head. Note I think much of this critique of EA is most relevant when talking about UHNW EAs. Can someone pledging to give away mass sums of money be trusted to do so if they’re unwilling to give up at least some significant control? We have now way to force them, but a there could be a new norm in EA which says they have to put a significant percentage of the pledge into a trust that’s partially controlled by other people before the community (and hopefully the press) gives them the social credit.
So I disagree with this post on the object level, but I more strongly object to...something about the tone, or the way in which you’re making this critique?
First, the title: ‘The EA community does not own its donors’ money’. idk—I bite the bullet and say that while the EA community of course does not legally own its donors’ money, the world at large does morally have claim to the wealth that, through accidents of history, happens to be pooled in the hands of a few. I legally own the money in my bank account, but I don’t feel like I have some deep moral right to it or something. Some of it comes from my family. Some of it does come from hard work… but there are lots of people who work really hard but are still poor because they happen to have been born in a poorer country, or lacked other opportunities that I had. That’s why I give away a lot of my money—I don’t think I have “claim” to all my money, just because it happens to be in my bank account.
Second, the headings: ‘How would this happen?’ and ‘Can you demand ten billion dollars?’ If someone has proposed a new way of doing things, it’s reasonable to ask for details. But the fact that details don’t already exist—at an early stage! - should not be grounds for critique. Compare:
”Can you demand that slave owners free their slaves?”
″What, are you just going to make people hire women for the same jobs as men?”
You are allowed to say ‘the world is suboptimal as it is; it would be better if it were different’ without having a detailed theory of change for how you get there! You can come up with that when you have more support for the broad proposal—many hands make light work!
I also don’t experience a moral conviction about my ownership of my bank account, but I understand there’s a lot of variance about this across the population and the differing intuitions here have caused society and history a great deal of stress. I guess I ascribe most of my success to birth lotteries and people who feel moreso like they had to grind and face adversity would be likely to feel like their ownership over their resources is a morally valid matter.
Thank you for given voice to this perspective. I’m frustrated it took this much scrolling through the comments to find someone who addressed the fairly odd framing the OP took.
I think it should really be turned on its head. Note I think much of this critique of EA is most relevant when talking about UHNW EAs. Can someone pledging to give away mass sums of money be trusted to do so if they’re unwilling to give up at least some significant control? We have now way to force them, but a there could be a new norm in EA which says they have to put a significant percentage of the pledge into a trust that’s partially controlled by other people before the community (and hopefully the press) gives them the social credit.