About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When A takes money from B to give to C, and A is a legislator, the process is called taxation.
But I would call it theft.

But when A is an officer or director of a corporation, it is called philanthropy.
But I would call it theft. That is, if by "take" you mean that person B has no choice in what happens to his money.



Post 1

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan Dawe, why settle for theft? There are so many wonderful words to describe taxation, like "robbery" and "extortion" and "protection racket".

Post 2

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think in the case of the corporate officer, the person from whom he "takes" the money is the stockholder, i.e., the charitable donation could have improved the stockholder's bottom line.  Discussing egoistic versus altruistic corporate support of various non-profits would take an article unto itself.  I know BB&T has made contributions to educational foundations that support pro-capitalist scholarship, so one could argue that it improves the long-term health of its stock in this fashion.  I do not know the full context of the quote and so cannot comment further.

Post 3

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Because, Matthew - theft is the essential concept... remember the two syndromes, the Taking/Tribalist one? consider what its essence meant - the animal's way of survival, to simply take, provided one is able to get away with the taking...

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 6:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Individuals have a MUCH greater freedom as a shareholders. Buy companies that agree with you philosophy. The value of the stock may be worth an objection to its philanthopic adventures. Buy it, sell it or leave it alone, but don't absolve the shareholder of his responsibilty to make the decisions that will affect the company's path.

Post 5

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quite timely in conjunction with this morning's New York Times article outlining Google's lavish and progressive corporate philanthropy plan. At least Google has made no effort to hide its leftist philanthropic plans -- shareholders knew what they were choosing to buy into.

http://tinyurl.com/df4s2
(Edited by Roger Post
on 10/12, 10:20pm)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 6:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Roger,

Whoever said that philanthropy and charity were leftest?

Before the company went public, the owners decided to donate 1 percent of the corporate assets to what they perceived as making the world a better place. It was their money, their invention and their company. Their call. I see nothing left-wing there - like asking the government to foot the bill. They sold stock to their property to the public under the terms they set.

Very selfish as far as I can see.

Even so, I read the article and the full one percent is not going to the Google Foundation and non-profit organizations. Less than one third of that is going there. The remaining portion is going toward "profit-making businesses with socially useful goals."

That is leftest?

Sound like some very successful capitalists of the highest order are being benevolent to me. I admire these guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, for their outstanding achievement.

Personally I use Google for research (and even spell checking) all the time.

Michael


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.