«The Gates Foundation for example, is strongly “pro-life,” which is one of the strongest arguments I can think of, for why philanthropists should instead be taxed and the funds they would have spent on their conception of the public good dispersed through democratic means, rather than allowing the personal opinions of an individual become de facto healthcare policy.»
blog.bgcarlisle.com/2019/06/05
I really like this blog post by @bgcarlisle.

Krzysztof Jurewicz
Follow

@kensanata @bgcarlisle And if the democratic majority was “pro-life” while Gates Foundation being “anti-life”, would it be an argument for not taxing philanthropists’ property?

@KrzysiekJ @kensanata Please read the rest of the linked post, in which the point of that quote, which you have embarrassingly missed, is explained

In the future, please consider not jumping into a stranger's mentions in order to get on your favourite hobby-horse or be contrarian

scholar.social/@bgcarlisle/101

@bgcarlisle @kensanata Just assumed that if this kind of quote is made, then it probably shouldn’t need broader context to stand in a discussion.

The two mentions were the default behaviour of my Mastodon client and I don’t consider this wrong in these circumstances.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
capitalism.party

capitalism.party is a paid signup Mastodon instance funded directly by users purchasing accounts for just $5. An inexpensive alternative to free signup platforms, we impose direct economic cost on trolls who want to avoid blocks by creating many accounts. This instance will actively respond to any problematic users.