RE: Brave New World

[Dave Hamilton <DHamilton@baydweller.com>]

  At the risk of repeating your earlier discussion:
  
  > We recently had this discussion about Gates's so called philanthropy.
  A
  > company or person who "donates" with a person agenda is not donating
  > anything. When apple gave discounts, it wasn't donating, it was buying
  
  This seems to me to be entirely arbitrary.  If you define donations
  entirely from the perspective of the party doing the giving, then
  everyone has an agenda.  Do we rule out anyone who makes a donation and
  then takes a tax deduction?  What about someone who is religiously
  motivated?  Does a reward in the hereafter disqualify a good act because
  the person is motivated by a later reward?  Where do you draw the line?
  
  Maybe true philanthropy is defined as losing your wallet.
  Unintentionally, of course.
  
  Why can't philanthropy be evaluated from the perspective of the
  beneficiary?  Or at least by an equally weighted evaluation.  I wouldn't
  have a problem evaluating a "level" or "quality" of philanthropy based
  on certain criteria, but I certainly wouldn't discount the presence of
  philanthropy on any set of criteria - how can any such evaluation be
  objective?
  
  Dave Hamilton
  dhamilton@baydweller.com