RoR: Forum

Thanks for posting - how tragic to see this. It is also tragic they waste their money by propping up inept, corrupt governments that exploit their people by allowing them to do so. Buying vaccines? Great, now I can go put a new wing on my Palace instead of taking care of those pesky sick people.

Post 1

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 5:11am

I wish I had been surprised by this story. I was not at all.

Doug Casey pointed out that with that kind of money, somebody start a country. The new country would then probably solve all the problems the Gates Foundation allegedly wants to solve.

Post 2

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 6:59am

I�m amazed that wealthy or moderately wealthy people are so often fanatical collectivist. Could it be they have a bizarre sense of guilt associated with their money?

Post 3

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 1:36pm

I�m amazed that wealthy or moderately wealthy people are so often fanatical collectivist. Could it be they have a bizarre sense of guilt associated with their money?

Most are Christian or Christian influenced - how, then, could they not?

Post 4

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 7:47pm

I certainly can�t dispute the influence Christianity has had on Western Philosophy, however, it seems to me that there is something far more subtle at work.

Maybe it is the feeling that wealth has been taken and not created; maybe these wealthy feel guilt that they have not actually earned this wealth? So, now they want to expropriate our wealth to atone for their �sins�. What do you think?

Post 5

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 8:58pm

Oh come on, Robert. There are a hell of a lot more decent middle-class Catholic engineers and Mormon farmers than there are guilt-free agnostic advocates of capitalism among the rich, I'll wager. How many middle of the road Christians do you know who are as destructive, hypocritical and malign as Bloomberg and Corzine? At least when decent folk like rock-musicians get rich, they usually have they decency to splurge with panache and then overdose and die in private. When nerds and busybodies get rich they establish foundations and endow the unworthy with the unearned, bequeathing their own hollowness to posterity - with strings even! Frontline isn't supported by the minister's collection plate.

Ted Keer

Post 6

Thursday, May 3, 2007 - 11:09am

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the two greatest capitalists on earth. Pretty much no two people in history have ever benefited more from free enterprise than them. So I guess it makes a kind of sense -- in today's sick-puppy Dark Age -- for them to do everything humanly possible, directly and indirectly, to destroy capitalism, free enterprise, free trade, and freedom generally. After all, we've got to advance the cause of welfare statism and service to others!

But how are these two monsters still heroes of the Objectivist and libertarian community? Why isn't there searing hatred directed their way? Why aren't they generally recognized by us as the sad, bizarre, loathsome, anti-Western, anti-capitalist traitors and devils that they are?

Amount of money donated to Objectivism? Zero.
Amount of money donated to libertarianism? Zero.
Amount of money donated to free enterprise and free trade groups? Zero.
Amount of money donated to individualist and egoist groups? Zero.
Amount of money donated to atheist and free-thought groups? Zero.
Amount of money donated to anti-Islamic and pro-Western groups? Zero.
Amount of moral and verbal support given to any of these? Zero.

So how are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet our heroes?

Post 7

Thursday, May 3, 2007 - 1:34pm

Andre, the amount of support, verbal or monetary, doesn't matter, since none of these people has a duty to support anything. But donating money or support to causes that are antithetical to freedom is, of course, abominable. I concur on your wonder for why some people lionize these people, especially Gates. And the fact that anyone even floats Bloomberg as a possible candidate nauseates me.

Ted

Post 8

Thursday, May 3, 2007 - 7:19pm

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the two greatest capitalists on earth. Pretty much no two people in history have ever benefited more from free enterprise than them. So I guess it makes a kind of sense -- in today's sick-puppy Dark Age -- for them to do everything humanly possible, directly and indirectly, to destroy capitalism, free enterprise, free trade, and freedom generally. After all, we've got to advance the cause of welfare statism and service to others!

But how are these two monsters still heroes of the Objectivist and libertarian community? Why isn't there searing hatred directed their way? Why aren't they generally recognized by us as the sad, bizarre, loathsome, anti-Western, anti-capitalist traitors and devils that they are?

Amount of money donated to Objectivism? Zero.
Amount of money donated to libertarianism? Zero.
Amount of money donated to free enterprise and free trade groups? Zero.
Amount of money donated to individualist and egoist groups? Zero.
Amount of money donated to atheist and free-thought groups? Zero.
Amount of money donated to anti-Islamic and pro-Western groups? Zero.
Amount of moral and verbal support given to any of these? Zero.

So how are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet our heroes?

I couldn't disagree more.

No one should show appreciation or acknowledgement to proselytizing egomaniacs who do not reciprocate that fine treatment.

Post 9

Thursday, May 3, 2007 - 7:32pm

Oh come on, Robert. There are a hell of a lot more decent middle-class Catholic engineers and Mormon farmers than there are guilt-free agnostic advocates of capitalism among the rich, I'll wager. How many middle of the road Christians do you know who are as destructive, hypocritical and malign as Bloomberg and Corzine? At least when decent folk like rock-musicians get rich, they usually have they decency to splurge with panache and then overdose and die in private. When nerds and busybodies get rich they establish foundations and endow the unworthy with the unearned, bequeathing their own hollowness to posterity - with strings even! Frontline isn't supported by the minister's collection plate.

You obviously missed what was said, especially the last part - "...or Christian influenced..".... as pointed out in the thread on religious beliefs, it is all prevasive, even if other modes are given lipservice... besides, the initial issue was of Gates and Buffett, not politico hacks like Bloomberg, who didn't earn his wealth to begin with... as for Frontline, it doesn't need the collection plate - the pervasive guilt 'keeps the coffers' filled without the asking......

Post 10

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 4:54pm

Not too big of a point I guess, Robert, but saying Christian-influenced would include Rand, vide Aquinas, and just about anything. And altruism is neither a creation of, nor unique to Christianity. I think we can agree that altruism seeking tax money is abomination without having the same gut reflex toward Christianity per se. I just think that the "godless" statist altruism of the big guys usually turns out a heck of a lot more malign than the decent happy and productive lives of your average believer who has to work for a living. To a certain extent, Gates and Bloomberg are people-manipulators, marketers but not free-marketeers, men with the right connections who make profits through their contacts. Without IBM needing a knock-off of Macintosh, Gates would be what?

Makes me wonder if not taxing non-profits is a mistake. Why do the altruists get a pass?

Ted

Post 11

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 7:34pm

I agree Ted. That is I agree if I am ready you correctly. It is altruism, not Christianity, that is the monster of the world. Christians didn�t create this feeling that everyone is better than oneself but they did champion it. Christians are a symptom; altruism is the disease.

As for our lack of real business hero�s, this is probably due to the extraordinary and pervasive influence of altruism in our society. There just aren�t many people who we can honestly say earned what they have.

Post 12

Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 4:36am

The rich have always donated huge sums to their favorite charity or cause. Often they received some trophy to their ego such as having a building or endowment named after them that would live long past their physical presence. Rand never spoke out against private funding of charities, in fact she encouraged it.

The fact that Gates and Buffett give away millions of their own money is proof that capitalism works. Its a huge shining beacon that others wish to follow. Money is power, its a power more powerful than words that people can use to support their philosophy.

But if money is more powerful than words then how you contribute your worth says a lot about you. If you contribute to causes that are anti-freedom you're telling people you're either a statist or ignorant. The third possibility is that someone else made the decision. That Mr. Bill Gates is P..whipped and Melinda Gates made this choice. If Bill is PW'ed that is the worst possibility. Because that means he sacrificed his philosophy for someone else.

Post 13

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:26pm