First of all, I want to say that I personally appreciate the principle behind what these two are doing to curb smoking. A true libertarian might argue that a campaign like this on what is essentially a lifestyle choice is oppressive, and cigarette smokers might just think that these two guys being up on their high horse telling them what they shouldn’t do is as annoying as 8th grade D.A.R.E. class, but I’m not either of those, so I say kudos. Cigarette smoking is addictive and unhealthy and at the very least someone should make sure that people are well-informed about that worldwide. Nonetheless, I think this raises some interesting questions.
I’ll start with Bloomberg. Yes, he’s a billionaire, but he is also the current mayor of New York and an oft-discussed potential presidential candidate. Is it right for him to publicly use his money in a way that could influence voters–even if it is for charity? Let’s imagine that instead of funding an anti-smoking campaign he purchased lunch for a number of poor voters in Ohio and Florida, would that be alright? How different are these two? Referring back to avschwarm’s post on campaign finance, is this also an unfair political use of money?
Alright, on to Gates. Its hard to argue that what he has been doing with his money isn’t a good thing, and I don’t intend to do so. However, I think there are some broader questions about him that deserve some discussion: is it a socially beneficial outcome for someone to be able to accumulate such wealth (through arguably monopolistic behavior) so that they can then decide how to spend that money trying to fix the social problems of an unequal society? Rockefeller and Carnegie were both quite philanthropic with their money and society benefitted tremendously, but would we have been better off had they not become rich through monopolistic means? Does Gates have an obligation to give money away through his foundation? On a personal level, what obligation do we all have to be public servants-billionaires or not?
Finally, what does it say about society that we tacitly depend on the whims of billionaires to address some of our most pressing global problems?
Alright, so the last question is certainly heavy-handed, but nonetheless important. They are all tough questions, but I do not think we should shy away from them.
It might be even more questionable given that Bloomberg and Gates, two Americans, are funding anti-smoking campaigns outside the United States, specifically in India, China, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Meddling in their domestic affairs? Maybe, although it depends if you have a cosmopolitan perspective or not.
Anyway, I agree that the world would be better off if it didn’t have to rely on altruistic billionaires to fix its problems, but my inclination is to applaud their efforts.
Do they have an obligation to do it? Only, I would say, in the sense that they might be rich because some of the rest of the world is poor, and perhaps that poverty has limited the reach of anti-smoking education.
What if instead of Gates and Bloomberg supporting anti-smoking education, it was a Christian fundamentalist billionaire spending $500 billion on an anti-abortion or anti-contraception campaign? We probably find that distasteful if not morally reprehensible. Where’s the difference?