This is a deft rebuttal of a criticism that funds given philanthropically would be better given democratically. However the argument, as I have often heard it, is not for greater democratic control over just those resources that are being given philanthropically but for greater democratic control over the resources that aren't being given as well.
As you've argued, it's unlikely that any given government would make better use of, say, $10m of philanthropically given money than an educated philanthropist acting in genuine democratic spirit. But if we broaden our scope and see that the $10m is just 10% of, say, $100m that said philanthropist could conceivably (however defined) have given away, and that our philanthropist has decided to devote $90m to continued private wealth hoarding and a paltry $10m to philanthropic causes, then we might start to think that government could have done a better job with it.
This is a deft rebuttal of a criticism that funds given philanthropically would be better given democratically. However the argument, as I have often heard it, is not for greater democratic control over just those resources that are being given philanthropically but for greater democratic control over the resources that aren't being given as well.
As you've argued, it's unlikely that any given government would make better use of, say, $10m of philanthropically given money than an educated philanthropist acting in genuine democratic spirit. But if we broaden our scope and see that the $10m is just 10% of, say, $100m that said philanthropist could conceivably (however defined) have given away, and that our philanthropist has decided to devote $90m to continued private wealth hoarding and a paltry $10m to philanthropic causes, then we might start to think that government could have done a better job with it.