Okay, joking aside, I really can’t figure out if this post from Attytood is meant as a jape or not. If it’s serious, my brain hurts. Even assuming that Craig Newmark is in fact singlehandedly responsible for the precipitous recent decline of American daily newspapers (a debatable point in itself), it’s nuts to contend that by inventing and giving away some new good thing you incur a moral obligation to provide social welfare to the people who were previously making a living by selling it. I’m entirely comfortable with the idea that society as a whole has an obligation to help the unfortunate, and (as a liberal) I’m fine with higher rates of taxation on rich guys like Craig Newmark. But specifically dumping extra-special obligations on a philanthropist as punishment for his philanthropy is crazy. By that logic, all donations to relieve any kind of human suffering should oblige the donor to additionally provide for the hypothetical lost livelihoods of people who might have stood to profit from the suffering thus relieved—usurers, drug dealers, weapons merchants, and on down.