Nice, respect.

>But let me ask you this - with Bill Gates' charity giving away billions of dollars constantly, how does he continue to make more and more money every single year?

None of the money he's getting comes from the BMGF, so presumably it's because he owns a huge amount of stock in one of the largest (and still-growing) tech companies in the world.

>For example, if you look up where he's sending it, do you think he's putting it all directly in the hands of those who need it?

Yes, I think so. The foundation doesn't have a 100% perfect track record in every area, but it's pretty darn good, especially regarding vaccine campaigns in developing countries.

>Because the charity has also donated billions to other companies, and hundreds of millions to those they have stocks and bonds in.

Which other companies, specifically, and what amount of that isn't just the BMGF investing its funds in the long term (which is a good choice if they can't spend everything on short notice)? How does Gates get any of this money back, and how does the overall amount invested compare to the ~$20 billion donated to global health causes?

Absolutely not! :P

>Abstract concepts such as a social class cant do anything…

Yes they can. They do all the time. Let's open a random news article from, uh, say the guardian. Let's look at the title of the first featured international news article:

>Russia-Ukraine war live news: Ukraine fears Russia planning false flag attack amid Kremlin’s ‘dirty bomb’ claims

Neither Ukraine which apparently "fears" nor Russia which apparently is feared to be planning a false flag attack are people. It's an abstraction of multiple different people doing and thinking often conflicting things but summing up to a specific overall direction.

I think its possible that when Sartre is discussing freedom, he is referring to object level freedom as it is (the degree to which it is possible, in fact, which is unknown), whereas Camus is coming at it from a more abstract, analytical perspective, acknowledging that while we have some freedom, it is not completely unconstrained (which Sartre may simply take for granted, without acknowledging it explicitly).

Someone smarter than me would have to weigh in on the plausibility of this based on their comprehensive writings though.

> We are born into a world of choices such that we have sole control over what we choose.

I think this could be considered similarly: what does the word being used to point to the underlying phenomenon (freedom/choice) actually mean?

You’ve lost me somewhat.

All I’m suggesting is that throughout history organisations based on a specific ideology ( in which the ideas matter more than actual individuals - who become a means to an end) have a tendency when faced with the reality of failure to shore up the system or punish scapegoats by greater authoritarianism. Individuals matter less than preserving the ideology.

If you are saying there are no genuine believers at the top and it’s their own power they seek to maintain with the increasing authoritarianism then I think you have a very good point.

Though I think it’s possible there may be examples in which the action taken in the name of the ideology actually undermined their power and a more pragmatic approach would have been better for them?

Can we please not present as valid the work of people who helped work to kill several of my great uncles (and mostly succeeded)?

Sure, but he still goes further than 99.something% of people in his income bracket. 40% is a pretty substantial chunk of income even if he's making (say) 200k/year. As for why he doesn't donate more:

>"I just accept that I'm not a saint. There are people in my book who are better than I am, people who've donated a kidney to a stranger. I still have two kidneys. And I could certainly live more parsimoniously and donate more as a result."

>...

>"On the other hand, maybe it's the people like you who aren't giving – or who are working their way up to giving 1 per cent – who make me feel, 'Look, I'm not such a bad guy, I'm giving more than most.'"

You want something that never existed. We have never had a more "romantic" relationship with Earth than we do today.

But that's a second order problem with your comment. The first problem that needs to be addressed is that we need to define "romantic" and we need to understand what outcomes that relationship with nature has that differ from the outcomes of other relationships, and then determine which set of outcomes is more appealing based on predefined criteria. If you say you want something, you need to provide evidence to support why that thing is desirable. Otherwise you're just stating an aesthetic preference.

The "marketplace" isn't a person who decides things. It's just whoever controls the market. Whether it's a cabal of wealthy billionaires or the state, it doesn't really matter.

In the end, all capitalism is, is a system that separates people into employers and employees. You got that and you got some form of capitalism.

The title is pretty ridiculous as Peter Singer is hardcore on the left, wants huge changes at every level, wants international cooperation in general, wants to alleviate as much animal and human suffering as possible, etc. He's never used to justify or rationalize status quo, because he's on the left and wants CHANGE. Such as people donating money to solve urgent issues and save lives instead of burning money on a selfish hedonist treadmill which often damages the environment/etc. I'm not into clickbait.

[deleted]

It may be too late. Much of the world may be turning into a "MadMax" hellscape. I think you're greatly underestimating how central fossil fuel tech is too our global civilization, not just "tech" generally. Forget social media. As far as Boomers, I think you're throwing stones from a glass house. Boomers are intimately familiar with the "romantic relationship with nature" because it was called "being a hippie" back in their day!

Lol how so? In what way are Heidegger's contributions essential to our relationship with nature?

Singer donates 40% of his income to charity.

Thanks for taking the time to explain! I think I understand a little better now. It does seem like the difference of opinion is going to come down to how easy to find and how common those transformative policies are--although I think you could plausibly put them into the same category of explorative research, where you cast a wide net to find a few major discoveries.

Well, once you prohibit a class of people from participating in a marketplace, you're not practicing capitalism anymore. You're not letting the marketplace decide the efficient owners of capital.

So Naziism is, by definition, a critique of capitalism.

But exactly - it's easy to come up with examples of deliberate exploitation, human error/idiocy, impossible circumstances and simple panic, not so much of bad outcomes originating from someone sincerely trying, sticking to principles and expecting a good outcome with legitimate reason for that expectation. Almost like maybe it doesn't actually happen and supporters of the status quo just claim it does to try to undermine positive change - and I think we should be clear this accusation gets thrown at the left, not the right, despite the ideology frequently having then being accepted with time.

Using authoritarianism would often intrinsically represent a failing in belief, not consistency. Although another accusation thrown at the left is that of being authoritarian just for defending their position against the status quo and reactionaries.

Um… I was paraphrasing up your argument.

Abstract concepts such as a social class cant do anything… only the individuals that make them up. So we are back to what should the individuals in that group actually do.

That's extremely ignorant.

They already do in the form of subsidies. Do a little research into how much the fossil fuel industry gets, maybe starting with Missippi and the offshore oil in the Gulf. They are handsomely rewarded, not just in huge profits that are only recently falling below the tech giants.

>It’s difficult for individuals to do anything - so don’t take any personal responsibility?

So, stop asking for what abstract individuals should do and start asking what social classes, institutions and movements should be doing. If you want a concrete answer it is not possible to get one on the level of an abstract individual.

Intertwined in the antisemitism and what made it so attractive to the antisemetic people was that they could put the failings of capitalism onto Jewish people.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Apparently you're not paying attention because there's a f'n war in Europe! "Who knows?" Do you watch the news at all? Deliberate, willful ignorance is worse than just ignorance. Plus, even reluctantly tolerating Trump in the Republican party, is accepting facism. Democrats may not get a lot done, but they are not actively destroying democracy. There is no equivalence. The two-party system is indeed very flawed. The status quo is sickening, especially seeing Biden to give up any Green principals to keep the price of gas low. But there are worse things. And the rise of the extreme right in Europe is one.