One of the things we love to talk about on Slashdot is, of course, Bill Gates. Here's a little something I tossed off in response to a slashdot comment I found particularly repulsive, defending some of the less defendable actions of the Gates foundation. (See Dark Cloud over Good Works of Gates Foundation.) I mirror it here as an essential polemic on evil :p
I mean, its obvious that most of BillG's wealth given to the foundation must have been MS stock (or some stock anyhow). Given that, the foundation will just bleed dry if they don't invest for maximum profits. And the more profitable their investments, the more impact the foundation can have.
Your argument can be summed up as "saving the planet is hard".
Your argument does not in any way justify doing more damage than you are doing repair.
Also, compare and contrast this statement with the actions of the Gates foundation: "You should thank me for performing surgery to repair your knife wound, even though I am about to shoot you in the chest." You don't help people by killing them! It's pretty fucking simple.
Now owning stock in some company that does bad/evil stuff hardly makes you the perpetrator of the crime.
What? YES, IT DOES.
THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD TODAY - YOUR LACK OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I apologize for the super attention getting text but if you read, understand, and believe only one thing in this lifetime this should be it.
How the fuck do you think that the "evil corporations" keep getting the money to fuck people over? It's called an IPO! Or, of course, subsequent generation and sales of stock. They don't take over with their money, there isn't enough of that. They have to use someone else's money. That someone? The shareholders. They make it possible for corporations to do evil in the same way that these poor idiot kids signing up to get their GI Bill are making it possible for a corrupt government to illegally project power all over the globe - by producing a standing army.
Shareholders produce a standing army of cash. Your attempt to separate shareholders from responsibility is specious at best; if you are not an idiot or completely morally bankrupt then it is also disingenuous in the extreme.
I mean, the company is not going to behave different with/without the investment from the foundation.
Actually, that remains to be seen. One of the powers of a shareholder is to vote. Most people give up this right because without a big pile of shares, it is a waste of time. The Gates foundation can cause the company to behave more evilly by simply failing to vote against evil.
Because again -- he did not dole out money to the company -- he has not made a loan or a gift to these companies. He's simply using the profits generated from their share price appreciation.
I don't know if you understand that those are shares of the company. By issuing public shares, they got money. By purchasing public shares, you not only inflate the artificial value of the corporation, but you also own a piece of it. That's what shares mean, they're a share of the company. I'm talking to you like you're an idiot because you're acting like one.
Let me make it clear to you - this company is killing people and the Gates foundation owns a piece of the company. It's really not very complicated. I don't know why you are attempting to make it so, but there is no particular reason to do so unless you will benefit in some way.
I'm not sure where you got the presidential campaign thing from.
It's called paying attention. Try it sometime.
And why you're so cynical about his intentions. Have you heard his Harvard speech last year?
No. If you can point me to a transcript I will read it - I cannot receive high-speed internet where I live (except satellite - $80/mo for 9GB/mo - fuck that) and cannot use youtube at all (not even downloading with a download manager.)
And have you seen the progress being made by GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization)? They have already prevented over 2.5 million children's deaths in the third world. The Gates Foundation was an active partner in creating and funding GAVI.
How many will die due to the efforts of the corporations in which the Gates foundation has invested?
When you listen to Gates talk about solving problems for people in the most wretched of conditions, you'll realize -- he's got a different and fresh perspective compared to people who have worked in this field before.
Well, this is the first thing I agree with. He does have a fresh perspective compared to those who have worked in this field before - he doesn't give a fuck about anyone. But go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
Anyway, let me provide the most important supporting argument: there are plenty of places you could invest in companies at least trying to do the right thing. Instead, they are invested in things they know are killing people. I don't know how you can defend that. Please help me understand how it makes sense for the Gates foundation to invest in the company whose refinery is causing the children lining up to be vaccinated to be getting asthma, open lesions on their lungs... I mean we're talking lifelong damage to the respiratory system. And no matter how you try to weasel them out of it, the Gates foundation is a part of that. That's what it means to be a shareholder. That piece of paper does not absolve you of responsibility - in fact, it proves that you are responsible.
Bank of America had to withdraw its investments in Apartheid because its customers demanded it. But the Gates foundation has no customers per se. Who is there to put pressure on them to change their ways, if not the public? Unfortunately, like you, the majority are completely hoodwinked.
For all those who think you can save the planet by killing it, think again. It's just not going to fly.
There is one exception of course; humans are a parasite on this Earth. But being one of them, I don't advocate extinction for humans. I just think it would help save (practically) every other species.