“We can disagree and still be friends” only works (and then it is a good sign of political culture) when both sides agree to respect each other as equal citizens and acknowledge to have the same rights. The “friend” relationship is generally perceived as an equal one - in this case it is implied, but might (depending on the context entirely) be anything but that.
I don’t know where the pic from OP comes from, but I think it’s a pretty clever caption.
It’s important to think about the counterargument, I agree.
To counter your counterargument: it’s not a good argument on many levels (scope, allocation, distribution mechanism, effect). The main reason is that this sort of charity doesn’t improve the core problem of low(er) social mobility. The opportunity to pursue self-development/self-fulfillment should not be tied to the whimsical act of a better-off person but presented to everyone as equal as possible - through common goods and services. The impossible future is impossible due to vastly different prerequisites. The person’s “greatness” will never be seen, as most likely they will never be presented with the opportunity to display it.
Tell me in so many words how broken the American system is. I mostly agree, just want to emphasize the root problem is the legality of the business practice. The core question remains, sure. The more important questions are imo why is this legal and how can it be changed. The very basics should be that the system doesn’t proliferate practices that inevitably pose such “greater good scenarios”, these should only arise with illegal practices in the first place. Also: the notion of a greater good scenario implies that anything changes - I don’t see anything meaningful changing as of yet. They changed the visibility of leadership on websites ffs . This is so sad.
The core question is simple enough, rule of law needs to be upheld regardless. I just hope the person never gets caught.