Most Hated Meddling Billionaire

Post Reply New Topic

Just to point out, part of my motivation in creating this poll was the seeming dichotomy that many people hold concerning activism, e.g. that they would like to change the world for (what would in their opinion be) the better, but have some sort of moral issue with people with resources doing the same. To use myself as an example, I write about and debate politics here both because it's fun, and because in some small way I'd like to encourage people to think about certain issues in different ways. If I had more money and less time, I might donate my money to organizations that support the same worldview that I do, so that they might affect changes that I find desirable. If I had a LOT more money, I might found my own organizations for the same purpose or otherwise use my resources to promote policies and positions that I think are correct. So, other than scale, how is what people like George Soros or the Koch brothers do any different than what any of here do when we espouse a position? I tried to approach the same issue in a different thread, but I couldn't seem to find the proper wording.

The Kochs owe their fortune to this man...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkCXtMHCUTc[/youtube]

Soviet agents out to sharpen the contradictions of capitalism?

Probably because Soros (iirc, the owner of Fox News) wants to explicitly denigrate people? Instead of encouraging them in a constructive and respectful way?

As my dad recently said "When you have that much money (when refering to Mr.Weston, who owns a grocery chain and other things in Canada), you can afford being nice (as he appears in the publicities of his own grocery poducts, and he is Canada's 2nd richest man, or at the very least within the top 5)". Apparently some people would rather not care about being nice and just be mean. =/ Power can do that.

I think you mean Rupert Murdoch, he owns Fox. George Soros is a currency speculator who bankrolls a number of left leaning causes, such as Media Matters and Move on.org, and recently threw some money at proposition 19 in California.

The thing is, I'm sure each of these people in their own way thinks that they are doing good, even Rupert Murdoch I imagine.

@Xenon13

I'm far from an expert on the Koch family, but IIRC it was David and Charles's father's experience with Soviet communism while doing business in the USSR that pushed him and his children to so totally reject Marxism and leftist politics in general. It is correct to say that the family once did business with Stalin, but it doesn't really mean anything.

the problem is, that one person's "good" may well be another person's extremely bad. one person may think that driving a particular person [or class of people] to an early grave is good. money=power. too much money burning a hole in too few pockets is a recipe for somebody running roughshod over somebody else they don't care for. when somebody spends gargantuan amounts of money to dominate the media, it sucks all the air out of the place for anybody else to get a word in edgewise. letters to the editor of the local catbox liner [or websites where people complain] are just farts in a stiff wind. the small voices get drowned out unless a rich benefactor finds it useful to be a counterweight. i'm glad there is a big fat leftie to counterbalance a big fat rightie. [you can guess who those people are]

nope, too patrician for my plebian blood. more like "mother jones" and "the nation."

That explains so much. You do know that you officially can't complain about Fox now, right?

Oy, in all seriousness, I don't hate them, I just don't particularly care for them.

And how many people do you really know that want to be rich just so they have money for projects? Most people I know that want to be rich want to be rich for the fancy crap (houses, cars, lavish parties, food, clothes, etc.)

Calvin Coolidge's America shut its door on the Kochs and their oil discoveries. Stalin welcomed them with open arms.

So? What's your point?

whatever you said, it went over my head. and i only said i wanted a big ol' counterweight to fox, not to ban them.

I believe the objection is when these billionaires are percieved to be acting in a dishonest or unethical manner in the way their funded organizations are run, or when there is perceived hypocrisy or simply trying to buy government to suit their own personal interests.

For instance, I have seen leftist sources complain that the Koch brothers are setting up astroturf organizations whose supporters believe they are part of a more populist movement. I'm sure similar accusations have been made against Soros.

More justifiably, a democratically-minded individual would not believe that wealthy people should be able to weild that kind of disproportionate influence in politics and government. If one believes in democracy and true equality in representation, then one should find the ability of billionaires to buy elections repugnant.

My area of interest in the whole thing is where the line is drawn; when does simple activism become disproportionate influence? I don't see anything wrong with wanting to change the world, I'm sure most of us here would like to in one way or another, so I'm not surprised or outraged when other people from different strata do as well.

Also, with the notable example of Michael Bloomberg, buying elections hasn't been a terribly effective strategy, with Meg Whitman in California being only the latest example. I think if someone wants to get angry about disproportionate influence, lobbyists are the more appropriate target. I mean sure a billionaire could bankroll organizations and pay for advertising, but it still has to convince people in order for it to work, I mean no amount of advertising and agitating is going to make a committed liberal vote conservative and vise versa. However, anyone can give money to a lobbyist and do far more damage as far as actually affecting the law and policy, that's the real rotten apple in the bunch IMHO. Fixing THAT cesspool is a beyond the scope of this thread however.

When you get your news from nakedly partisan publications like the ones mentioned, you can't legitimately complain when other people get theirs from a moderately partisan outlet like Fox.

That depends on how committed to notions of democracy one is. As long as money can buy political influence (either through elections or, as you mentioned, through lobbyists) then true democracy is incompatible with any significant disparities in wealth distribution.


But most people aren't really committed liberals or conservatives, and can be swayed by advertising. At the very least, "swing" voters who decide an election can be bought with advertising dollars.