I was floating through the news recently-ish (definitely taking it in spoonfuls at a time) and somewhere in the absolute deluge of information the past while, I found this:
So, here's the short version: Florida decided that ex-felons could have their voting rights back BUT they had to pay any fees or fines attached to their sentence. Whelp, when you've been making prison wages for X years and no one wants to hire you, essentially, this was an insurmountable barrier for a lot of people. Mike Bloomberg and a few other notable persons stepped up to pay for these fines, to allow these persons agency in the system again--I mean, it would definitely be a case of taxation without representation, here. There was some pushback, but ultimately there was no clause that said these individuals had to pay the fee themselves, so it went through.
I had two major emotions with this:
Firstly, delight. What a wonderful bit of clemency and grace to these individuals, to help persons take ownership of the community again by giving back this piece of agency. What a beautiful reprieve and a gesture to help reach out to disenfranchised persons. This lasted for a few beats.
Secondly, a profound sense of disappointment. WHY don't we see this kind of thing more often? I'm talking about real philanthropy, rather than the token statements that a lot of billionaires in our country make. In short, I'm appalled that we have so many billionaires but no Batmans. Sure, Bezos will throw a couple million around every now and again--but this is literally pocket change to him. With a net worth of over 184 billion, he could end homelessness or world hunger and still have well over 150 billion left to retire on, let alone give his workers a living wage and better working conditions (example A and example B). And he doesn't. And neither do any of the others. So, no, they don't get credit and goodwill for throwing a couple million dollars at something for the tax break and the positive publicity. They have the power to make a massive impact on some serious problems, and they are choosing not to do it. Money and perceived success does not necessarily make someone a moral person, much as we would want to believe it, and there comes a point where someone that is hording resources is inherently no longer" good" by nature of their resource hording. I don't pretend to know where that magic line is, but it definitely includes one billion and up.
I'm not advocating for literal Batman--there are a number of issues with vigilantism and parts of Batman are pure power fantasy--but the general idea of using ones resources to tackle a larger community issue would have a much greater impact than punching three people in the face one night. Imagine if Batman spent all of that money on tech to ensure that everyone in Gotham had a living wage or helped pushed substance abuse counseling to undermine the drug trade in Gotham. That would reduce crime in Gotham far more than punching people.
...Do the Robins even get dental or just complex, emotional trauma? But in any case, yes, symbolic change can be encouraging and inspire other people, but REAL change is all the more inspiring and better reaches those who need the help.
Every day, Batman, Bezos, and other billionaires have the opportunity to use their resources toward something truly altruistic, and every day they choose not to.
Agree
ReplyDelete