{"id":538,"date":"2016-01-24T19:16:46","date_gmt":"2016-01-25T03:16:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/?p=538"},"modified":"2017-08-28T23:04:51","modified_gmt":"2017-08-29T06:04:51","slug":"its-time-to-distinguish-politics-investing-and-charity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/?p=538","title":{"rendered":"Zuckerberg’s billions \u2013 politics, investing, and charity"},"content":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s time for us, as a polis<\/em>, to revisit the mechanisms that distinguish politics, investing, and charity, the values we ascribe to each, and the boundaries that define them.1<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lucy Bernholz, self-described \u201cphilanthropy wonk,\u201d2<\/sup> wrote this in a short piece about the initial way the press covered the announcement of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.<\/p>\n

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan announced the Initiative on December 1 last year in a letter to their newborn daughter, Max.3<\/sup> In the letter, they pledged to give to this Initiative 99% of their Facebook shares over their lifetime, currently estimated to be worth $45 billion. The mission of the initiative, they said, is \u201cto advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation.\u201d Their initial areas of focus, they said, \u201cwill be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people, and building strong communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Chan<\/p>\n

The big news \u2013 in the philanthropic world, at least \u2013 is that the initiative will not be a charity despite its stated intention to do good in the world. It will be a limited liability corporation, or LLC. The Initiative\u2019s Facebook page said, \u201cThe Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s configuration gives it the freedom and funding to take big swings at the causes of humanity’s troubles.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Facebook, Zuckerberg discussed the decision to use an LLC: \u201cThis enables us to pursue our mission by funding nonprofit organizations, making private investments, and participating in policy debates.\u201d He also stressed that, since the new venture is an LLC, putting their money there does not give them any tax benefits.<\/p>\n

At the same time, a piece by Suzanne Wooley on BloombergBusiness<\/em> makes some of the benefits of an LLC clear and suggests ways that the LLC form determines what the Initiative can do.4<\/sup>\u00a0 1) There won\u2019t be limits on advocacy and lobbying. 2) The Initiative can turn a profit, though that\u2019s not the aim, Zuckerberg says. 3) It will be easier to do joint ventures with for-profit companies.\u00a0And 4) it avoids the requirement, placed on a nonprofit foundation, that at least 5% of its value be given away each year. In addition, Zuckerberg is CEO of the new Initiative, meaning, as Kurt Wagner put it on <RE\/CODE>, \u201c\u2026Zuckerberg can spend his billions wherever he wants.\u201d5<\/sup><\/p>\n

And, now, I come round again to the quote from Lucy Bernholz that I started with. Right after the quote I used, she goes on to say:<\/p>\n

Using all three tools [charity, investing, and politics] may be strategically advantageous to donors. But democracies may have good reason to not allow these activities to become interchangeable even as they may be complementary. If we believe there are differences between political activity and charitable giving \u2013 for example, if we think one should be transparent and the other has room for anonymity \u2013 we need to protect those distinctions.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The blurring of lines between charity, politics, and investing can have some upsides, but the results brought about by those who\u2019ve been doing it for a long time should give us pause. It\u2019s the systems and rules about these activities that need fixing. And that\u2019s up to us.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to suggesting that we understand the distinctions between the mechanisms of and the boundaries defining these three worlds, Lucy asks us to\u00a0consider the \u201cvalues we ascribe to each.\u201d Thinking especially about how the three realms differ from each other in terms of their values calls to mind a framework I\u2019ve carried with me since the mid-1990s. It\u2019s one I adopted from Jane Jacobs in Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics<\/em>, published in 1992.6<\/sup><\/p>\n

In this book, Jacobs first identifies two different ways of getting a living, that is, of ways to survive \u2013\u00a0trading and guardianship. She calls them \u201csyndromes.\u201d Trading includes the whole commercial, profitmaking world of people who trade or produce for trade. Guardians, on the other hand, traditionally were hunter-gatherers, raiders, and warriors who survived by taking (also meaning, as I understand it, by taxing). Today, guardians are also involved in protecting territory and resources, not just taking them. Among others, the state in its various forms, governmental agencies, legislatures, the police, and many religious organizations are guardians.<\/p>\n

\"Jacobs<\/p>\n

In her\u00a0book, Jacobs contends that each of the syndromes has its own set of morals \u2013 manners, customs, mores, and social sanctions that provide systems of informal social regulation. The morals in the commercial syndrome include, among others: be honest, respect contracts, compete, come to voluntary agreements, shun force, use initiative and enterprise, be efficient, promote comfort, collaborate easily with strangers, be thrifty, be optimistic. The guardian syndrome, on the other hand, includes morals such as: shun trading, exert prowess, be obedient and disciplined, adhere to tradition, be loyal, respect hierarchy, show fortitude, take vengeance, make rich use of leisure, be fatalistic, treasure honor.<\/p>\n

What really grabbed my attention was that, as Jacobs presented them, the two sets are not interchangeable. Qualities found in one syndrome are not appropriate in the other. Beyond simply their differences, she believed that the two syndromes, while interdependent, must function separately. In fact, she said, \u201cCrazy things happen systematically when either moral syndrome\u2026embraces functions inappropriate to it.\u201d This can lead to \u201csystemic corruption\u201d and to what she called, \u201cmonstrous hybrids.\u201d<\/p>\n

In notes to myself at the time, I wrote, \u201cThe idea that different moral standards apply in different circumstances is powerful. We live, it seems, with an underlying assumption that a single moral standard should apply throughout. It would be so much cleaner and easier that way. But the argument for different moral syndromes rings true.\u201d However, I immediately went on to tell myself, \u201cI\u2019m convinced that two are not enough. Gifts and gift exchange are missing.\u201d After making lists of morals for all three, I wrote, \u201cMy guess is that gifts and voluntary efforts may be an invisible but essential partner of trading, and maybe taking, too \u2013 both need gifts, just as trading needs guardians and vice versa.\u201d<\/p>\n

So many more thoughts race through my mind as I write, but for now, I\u2019ll just go back to Lucy\u2019s call that we revisit the mechanisms that distinguish politics (the guardian), investing (the trader), and charity (the gift giver) and that we consider the values we ascribe to each and the boundaries that define them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022<\/p>\n

Notes<\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. \u00a0Lucy Bernholz, \u201cWhat if the headline had read . . . ,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Medium<\/em>, January 12, 2016.<\/li>\n
  2. Digital Civil Society Lab: People, \u201cLucy Bernholz.\u201d\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, \u201cA Letter to Our Daughter,\u201d<\/a> December 1, 2015.<\/li>\n
  4. Suzanne Wooley, \u201cFour Reasons the Facebook Fortune Is Going Into an LLC\u201d<\/a>\u00a0BloombergBusiness<\/em>, December 2, 2016.<\/li>\n
  5. Kurt Wagner, \u201cMark Zuckerberg Responds to Critics<\/a>, Explains Where His Money Is Going,\u201d <RE\/CODE>, December 3, 2015.<\/li>\n
  6. Jane Jacobs, Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics<\/em>, Random House, 1992.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    \"cropped-9099-Logo-red_D-nick-squared.jpg\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    It\u2019s time for us, as a polis, to revisit the mechanisms that distinguish politics, investing, and charity, the values we ascribe to each, and the boundaries that define them.1 Lucy Bernholz, self-described \u201cphilanthropy wonk,\u201d2 wrote this in a short piece about the initial way the press covered the announcement of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Mark…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-538","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-commons-civil-society"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7pXN0-8G","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/538","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=538"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/538\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2253,"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/538\/revisions\/2253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.annefocke.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}