Whether democratic control of resources will result in an efficient allocation towards doing the most good
Whether democratic control of resources will attract or deter contributions from wealthy people
Whether donors have a moral claim to their wealth
It seems many of the comments express agreement with 1) and 2), while ignoring 3).
I would hope that a majority of the EA community would agree that there aren’t good reasons for someone to claim ownership to billions of dollars. Perhaps there are those that disagree. If many disagree, in my mind that would mark a significant change in the EA community. See Derek Parfit’s comments on this to GWWC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTUrwO9-B_I&t=6m25s.
The headline “The EA community does not own its donors’ money” may be true in a strictly legal sense, but the EA community, in that some of it prioritizes helping the worst off, has a much stronger moral claim to donors money than do the donors.
It’s entirely fair and reasonable to point out the practical difficulties and questionable efficiencies involved with implementing a democratic voting mechanism to allocate wealth. But I think it would be a mistake to further make some claim that major donors ought to be entitled to some significant control over how their money is spent. It’s worth keeping those ideas separate.
I would hope that a majority of the EA community would agree that there aren’t good reasons for someone to claim ownership to billions of dollars. Perhaps there are those that disagree.
I would certainly disagree vehemently with this claim, and would hope the majority of EAs also disagree. I might clarify that this isn’t about arbitrarily claiming ownership of billions of dollars—it’s a question of whether you can earn billions of dollars through mutual exchange consistent with legal rules.
We might believe, as EAs, that it is either a duty or a supererogatory action to spend one’s money (especially as a billionaire) to do good, but this need not imply that one does not “own their money.”
(“EA community, in that some of it prioritizes helping the worst off, has a much stronger moral claim to donors money than do the donors” may also prove a bit too much in light of some recent events)
Meh. Depends how you got the money. Obviously SBF is an example of someone for whom it was definitely immoral, but I doubt a billionaire exists that actually made their money morally.
It’s also difficult sometimes to enforce pledges to donate the money—SBF kept most of his money rather than putting it in the non-profits. Though in this regard Moskovitz and Tuna (and also Gates and Buffett for example) have delivered.
I can’t speak for Guy, but I’d say it’s because it’s impossible for a single person to create a billion dollars worth of value without skimming the vast majority of it from workers they employ.
This post and headline conflate several issues:
Whether democratic control of resources will result in an efficient allocation towards doing the most good
Whether democratic control of resources will attract or deter contributions from wealthy people
Whether donors have a moral claim to their wealth
It seems many of the comments express agreement with 1) and 2), while ignoring 3).
I would hope that a majority of the EA community would agree that there aren’t good reasons for someone to claim ownership to billions of dollars. Perhaps there are those that disagree. If many disagree, in my mind that would mark a significant change in the EA community. See Derek Parfit’s comments on this to GWWC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTUrwO9-B_I&t=6m25s. The headline “The EA community does not own its donors’ money” may be true in a strictly legal sense, but the EA community, in that some of it prioritizes helping the worst off, has a much stronger moral claim to donors money than do the donors.
It’s entirely fair and reasonable to point out the practical difficulties and questionable efficiencies involved with implementing a democratic voting mechanism to allocate wealth. But I think it would be a mistake to further make some claim that major donors ought to be entitled to some significant control over how their money is spent. It’s worth keeping those ideas separate.
I would certainly disagree vehemently with this claim, and would hope the majority of EAs also disagree. I might clarify that this isn’t about arbitrarily claiming ownership of billions of dollars—it’s a question of whether you can earn billions of dollars through mutual exchange consistent with legal rules.
We might believe, as EAs, that it is either a duty or a supererogatory action to spend one’s money (especially as a billionaire) to do good, but this need not imply that one does not “own their money.”
(“EA community, in that some of it prioritizes helping the worst off, has a much stronger moral claim to donors money than do the donors” may also prove a bit too much in light of some recent events)
One good reason to claim ownership to billions of dollars is that you are going to donate billions of dollars to effective charities.
Meh. Depends how you got the money. Obviously SBF is an example of someone for whom it was definitely immoral, but I doubt a billionaire exists that actually made their money morally.
It’s also difficult sometimes to enforce pledges to donate the money—SBF kept most of his money rather than putting it in the non-profits. Though in this regard Moskovitz and Tuna (and also Gates and Buffett for example) have delivered.
Why?
I can’t speak for Guy, but I’d say it’s because it’s impossible for a single person to create a billion dollars worth of value without skimming the vast majority of it from workers they employ.