Comment by cwalv

> As long as there is suffering, there is more work to be done.

A noble sentiment that I think resonates with most people.

> There is a sacred responsibility implicit in the acquisition of resources. It implicitly says "I know what to do better with these resources than others."

No, it doesn't. I may 'acquire resources' and use them (or not) simply because nobody else is around who wants them more. I may spend money on something frivolous (e.g. going to the movies), even while knowing there's a possibility that donating it to some 501c3 (or some other person directly) could end up improving lives significantly more than mine was improved from watching the movie, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

> This kind of misallocation is a universal crime.

We have fundamentally different conceptions of property rights.

You seem to believe that people who come into money have a responsibility of spending it in ways that you think are important. In my mind, unless they're ill-gotten gains, they've already improved people's lives proportionally, and they can spend or not spend the value others have accrued to them as they see fit.

There are economic systems where committees get to decide the most appropriate allocation of resources, independent of the people who "amass" the resources themselves. These systems universally end up with lower levels of societal wellbeing than ones where property rights are respected.