If a person has plenty of money and other goods with which to take care of themselves and their family, should they then ideally give the remainder of what they have to those who are needy?
If everyone did that, what would the world be like?
Is it redistribution of wealth, or is it charity? What is the difference?
A. Giving of our own free will to those we choose= charity?
B. Having things taken by others and given to those who they decide need it= redistribution of wealth?
If A were closely followed, would B even be necessary?
I’ll be the very first one in line to admit that I have not always been the most charitable of people. I’m trying harder. I’m getting better.
I’ll have to say though, without reservation, that the gift of a quarter of a billion dollars which Sean Parker is donating for immunotherapy cancer research might really come close to finding a cure for cancer. I remember so many times hearing on TV, during interviews with various people about what their fondest wish would be, and a “cure for cancer” was always at or near the top of the list.
And it takes one of the young, techie billionaires to donate enough money to maybe get the job done.
Not the Koch brothers, nor even Gates or Buffet…but a billionaire millennial.
Perhaps there is hope after all. Perhaps many of us, including me, can look at this man’s gift and think: “well I can’t do that much…but I can do more than I am doing now”.