If I am understanding the article correctly, the authors complaint is that he feels that Buffett, having this incredible gift, has a responsibility to use it for the good of the market (all those in the market, that is), and not to remove it from the market via philanthropy.

Having written the article, I can tell you that you are not understanding the article correctly (at least not on this point). By the way, no trackback?

First of all, the purpose of my article was to point out that Buffett contributed a vast amount of good to society by way of his investments. By following his own self-interested code, that,

it was never about the money - it was about something else, something [Buffett] loved doing, something [he was] so passionate about that [he] wanted to do it all the time.

Buffett ended up contributing a vast amount of wealth to the world. To me, it is this accomplishment that should be lauded over and above his philanthropy. It’s not that Buffett shouldn’t have the right to give it all away. It’s not that he shouldn’t give it all away. He has the freedom to do that which he wants. He has the obligation to himself to do what he wants.

However, it irks me that one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time fails to see what good his wealth has done in his own hands. It also bothers me that he can be so inconsistent in his ideology as to say that wealth is better managed under his watch for himself but not apply that idea to others.

I am further confounded by Buffett believing that other wealthy individuals who would rather have their wealth passed on to their progeny (or whoever they so desire) must either donate it to charity or pay it out in large portion to the wasteful U.S. government. That’s a damn snobby view to have: Buffett knows best for everyone else and therefore all should succumb to his view (Such is the basic paradigm of anyone who would argue that the government impose taxation on others).

And the world cheers him on - the same world that would have condemned him had he decided not to donate it all to charity. And Buffett is happy because everyone affirms his decision. When I take a contrary view and point out certain inconsistencies, I get taken to the shed.

Here is someone who honestly believes that the accumulation of wealth is the only worthwhile pursuit, the only morally acceptable course of action.

You oversimplify my view to an absurd point in an effort to file me away (likely in a file labeled “bloggers I’ve pwnd”). I do not “honestly believe” what you think I believe. No where in my post on Buffett did I imply such a view regarding the utmost importance of wealth accumlation. You can read here, here, and here for examples that contradict your claim. I respect having an internally consistent view of the world. For me, that means living an enjoyable, creative life that is free. In a truly free society, you make your life what you want - and as you would seem to espouse, that doesn’t necessarily mean you need a lot of money and/or material possessions (And I would agree). But you should be free to choose your own path.

You conclude:

To say that I must not submit to the government (while never mounting an insurrection, even on paper) but that I must submit to their view of how my own respources should be used is hypocritical, or at the very least, childishly naive.

This “gotcha” moment is misplaced. In the Buffett article I say, “It’s laudable that Buffett wants to make the world a better place with his wealth via donating it to the Gates Foundation - to do so of his own volition is what liberty is all about.” How do you reconcile your statement with my view, as an anarchist, that “to do so of his own volition is what liberty is all about”? And if you read through the comments on digg.com, you’ll find the other libertarians and anarchists saying the same.

This highlights a huge difference between the libertarian/anarchist view and the collectivist/Buffet view. Though libertarians and anarchists might tell you what ought be done, they will never force you to do that thing. Collectiviists/democrats/republicans tell you what you should do and use the government to make it so. This seems like a pretty important distinction that you seem to be missing.

King Regards,

Neal