Why does criticizing capitalism not fly for you, assuming that is Hickel's position?
For example: we've known this since biblical times. Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is.
Money is not evil in and of itself. Money is a tool. Like a hammer, money can be wielded in bad ways or good. You can build a house or bash someone's skull in. Because you can bash someone's head in with a hammer does that make hammers bad?
Private property and private property rights protect what people have worked for but if someone or some entity accumulates too much wealth and assets and capital at the expense of others then that's a very real problem.
Making a profit is not evil in and of itself; lowering your worker's wages or keeping them low (as inflation inflates away their earning power) to increase your bottom line is evil.
Now, some could argue that this is essential to capitalism, that it'll always be abused. But, one could say that of any system. I think people are coming to realise that capitalism must be strictly regulated in order for it to function well and that is not the same as criticizing capitalism itself. For these reasons those who rail against capitalism itself I have no time for.
But even with millions at their disposal there doesn't appear to be any moral fiber on parting with their money, trusting the government or not, private individuals deeming who is worthy of their charity is not the type of society to strive for. If man can't be trusted with greed then how can we trust the philanthropy of a few high profile individuals to distribute wealth.
Free market types who are anti government intervention and regulation are ideologues and I have no time for ideologues. I have no time for the rabid pro-capitalists, but neither do I have any time for the rabid anti-capitalist. Both are blinded by ideology. They are the enemy.
Enlightened philanthropy is a great thing. But I totally agree with you, I sure as hell wouldn't want to run all public services using that model.