The core problem is that society has to rely on the whims of these people to solve problems.
In an alternative universe we tax people more and ensure malaria eradication _whether or not Bill Gates personally decides to do so_.
There are obviously coordination problems (not saying that "government can solve everything!", there are difficulties there too). But having huge organizations ask for donations from people is a really ineffective way of solving most societal problems.
Your alternative cannot exist simply because the problem that exist isn't the billionaire but politicians and the governments they run. Gates and his type are able to have the effect they do because being individuals they don't run into problems of the state, there is no threat of imperialism or such. They are also able to do because they live under a government which respects private property rights, whether to self, land, money, or goods.
Government theoretically could solve everything but it requires good government to do so. The first step is what I stated above, respect for private property rights. If people cannot be assured their product of their work is theirs to use you cannot improve the society they live in. They must be able to trust their government.
extremely debatable. In the US, almost no national infrastructure was built through private means (though often privatised later). Private healthcare has been a disaster at maintaining a healthy public. An insistence on having government work happen through public contractors has generated massive conflicts of interests and made us end up with the most expensive infrastructure building process in the world.
Just because the Soviet Union fell over doesn't mean that capitalism has somehow been proven to be "the best solution".
I don't know a good label for the US healthcare system, but it's so heavily regulated it's impossible to call it "private".
>Just because the Soviet Union fell over doesn't mean that capitalism has somehow been proven to be "the best solution".
Name one country implemented socialism (and by that I mean the government owns the means of production) and didn't end up worse off than when it started. Even the Northern European welfare states are capitalist.
You asked to name a country that ended up worse. Since we are not at the end of history, the only consistent way to interpret "ended up" is "in its state as of the time of this statement."
edit: My above interpretation isn't quite right. It should be "its state as of the latest known point in time the predicate was true."
In an alternative universe we tax people more and ensure malaria eradication _whether or not Bill Gates personally decides to do so_.
There are obviously coordination problems (not saying that "government can solve everything!", there are difficulties there too). But having huge organizations ask for donations from people is a really ineffective way of solving most societal problems.