When ever was collective political choice over worthy social choices dominant over individual choice?

I’ve read a lot of history, and as far as I can tell the only states that have managed to make “collective political choice over worthy social choices” dominate over individual choice were those totalitarian states that controled the press and violently suppressed both dissidents and suspected dissidents. Otherwise, if people have an inch of freedom, we will use it to make individual choices. Throughout European history, people have evaded taxes, smuggled goods, worshipped the “wrong” gods, had sex outside marriage, worked for higher wages than the legal maximum, listened to officially-disapproved-of music. Were 1960s hippies showing any respect to the collective political choices over worthy social choices? How about 1970s feminists? How about 1920s flappers? How about the English Puritans? When exactly was this age when collective political choice over worthy social choices dominated individual choice?

And let’s not go into the subject of why on earth Christopher Caldwell believes Bono has some duty to submit his activism to a democratic vote.

And what’s the sin of poor people again? Failing to found, build, and run a successful business? That’s such an unthinkable crime!

Duh.

Noblesse oblige is one thing, but the purchase of political power by the super-rich, and their insistence on our gratitude for same is rather galling.

Apples and oranges again. Bono and Angelia Jolie aren’t ‘purchasing’ political power with their personal fortunes (which are nowhere near large enough to do that). Their political impact comes from their celebrity not their wealth. The same is true of Al Gore, BTW, who is now acting in an unelected capacity. How did Al Gore’s role in ‘Live Earth’ really differ from Bono’s in ‘Live 8’?

Note, too, that Bono’s calls for debt relief were not demanding charity from billionaires but rather government action. And the various ‘live’ celebrity charity concerts have been trying to raise money through large numbers of small donations not acts of noblesse oblige from undeserving billionaires benefiting from ‘a skewed system of economic transfers to the already wealthy’ (which travesty, I can’t help noting in passing, can often be described as ‘founding, building, and running a successful business’—and then those bastards often compound their sins by giving money away).

“Philanthropy is a route through which celebrity can be laundered into political power.”

Noblesse oblige is one thing, but the purchase of political power by the super-rich, and their insistence on our gratitude for same is rather galling. The biggest philanthropists come from a country where giving is a leisure activity and not an act of moral redress for a skewed system of economic transfers to the already wealthy. I said as much in a seminar a few months ago, and had the distinction of being called a communist by Angelina Jolie’s political/philanthropic adviser. Result!

And which societies do you suggest one study that are such powerful and efficient redistributors of wealth that not even a Bono (let alone a Bill Gates) can emerge—but are still prodigious generators of wealth?

And bear in mind that in Bono’s case, it’s not even wealth per se that is at issue —it’s fame and status. So if you want to prevent a person like Bono from having an outsized influence on the public debate, you’ll need not just a powerful and efficient wealth redistribution system, but a powerful system of ‘fame’ and ‘acclaim’ redistribution. Either that or powerful restrictions on what activities are permitted to famous people.

There is a vast body of scholarly literature on the relative efficiency of a dollar donated and redistibuted through various channels (government programs, NGO with a focus on urgency, NGO with a focus on development and long-term programs, confessional organizations…). I second Henry in the recommendation that you read a bit of that, you will find interesting answers about the question you asked (“Would anyone seriously argue…”). That said, the studies I have read never mentionned the Gates foundation, probably because it is relatively new and american (for obvious geographic reasons, I read mostly european literature); so it can be that it is highly effective.

(Coincidentally, the president of Microsoft Peru was called Alberto Gonzalez…)

The enormous assumption buried in this post is that the wealth generation would have been the same if the government engaged in a ‘powerful and efficient means of redistribution’. But real world examples of ‘powerful and efficient’ redistribution systems do not inspire confidence (to say the least) that such systems generate wealth to the same degree at all.

And then—would anyone seriously argue that, say, the U.N. would be a more efficient means of redistributing the Gates’s and Buffett’s billions than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? I mean really?

Since I wrote the essay I’ve reconsidered and I think that we might continue to allow philanthropy, but not allow the giver to claim a tax deduction. Small amounts could still get favorable tax treatment (say up to $10K or some such figure).

Anyway, here’s the link to the essay, if anyone is interested:

Abolish Philanthropy

“It’s not that Bono has changed his message, it’s that the ‘world’ is suddenly interested, so now he is flying around the world to do ‘earth’ concerts.”

Bullcrap. The “world” has no say over whom Bono gives his money to. The world may influence him, but ultimately it’s his choice whether to give his money to Africa, or environmentalists, or his dog.

“That’s just the way things are” isn’t the explanation. (In fact, it’s not even any explanation. Think about it.)