Re: Choice, not Charity
So, your suggestion is? If your suggestion is "you should have taxed him more a while ago", well, it didn't happen. If your suggestion is "take away his resources now", don't expect that to happen either. If your suggestion is that he should donate his money to a fund controlled by the government rather than a fund he controls, don't expect that to happen either, because he and probably various others will have more confidence in his determination rather than any national government.
In addition, there are different goals between philanthropists and governments. Do you think the public would be very interested in curing a disease that never affects them, in an area far away with which that country doesn't interact very much? Would a government that is beholden to its voters, lobbyists, and businesses but not to people on another continent spend a ton of money on a comparatively small project to help the least powerful there? It sometimes happens--there is foreign aid--but it's not their primary concern and arguably shouldn't be (I wouldn't argue that but I've heard enough people do so that it does have an effect). It is his choice to spend his money on people outside his country, in a way that might not be the priority of the people who would get the vote on it if he had to turn the resources over. Unless the people decide that, for some reason, he needs to have his money taken away, that is his choice to make.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
