Redistribution of Wealth

It is true that some of the most impoverished people in the world live outside of the United States. This also again invokes my earlier point regarding different governments as well as ratios of rich to poor. There are not billionaires in every area where there are poor. Therefore, this resolution would necessarily have to support an inter-governmental agreement to rob billionaires of their money (regardless of whether or not the proceeds are funneled through a charity). My opponent provides some information that supports my case by listing the generosity of some billionaires. As a matter of fact, I was planning to use that point in later rounds. Again, I point out that everyone who signed the Giving Pledge, seen in the previous round, promised to use a majority - that is, over 50% - of their wealth for philanthropic purposes. Now, there are plenty of billionaires who "only give away tiny percentages of their total fortunes and call it a day." How does it become your business, or the business of the government, to tell them what to do with their hard-earned money? My opponent has already conceded that many of the rich worked hard to earn their money. So what right do others have to invade their liberty and tell them what to do with it? You may not like what some rich people do with their money, but that does not mean you can dictate what they spend it on. You may believe that people have a moral obligation to assist others, but you cannot impose that belief on the really, really rich without taking away their freedoms and liberties. And, as established, many billionaires do use their wealth to help others. My opponent's rebuttal to my second contention revolves around the right of individuals to impose standards regarding what they can and cannot spend money on. Essentially, my opponent acknowledges my basic argument and concedes the validity of it, but protests that the rich gain too much money. I again argue that we do not have the right to force them to spend money on something we agree on. Just like we do not have the right to stop someone from spending money to see Twilight just because we think it's a terrible movie, we do not have the right to stop them from spending money on themselves and their families rather than on helping people in need. Additionally, my opponent dropped the second half of my argument here regarding the de-incentivizing of the rich and poor to work. As he did not specify any future response to these points, we must conclude he concedes them, and so they go to me. I admit that I made an assumption based on the resolution, and I thank my opponent for clarifying. If the money were funneled through government or other organizations (still through government, as only government can force the wealthy to give away money), then my contention loses validity. I still have two other strong contentions, and I will introduce a different one here, as this is the second round, and my opponent still has ample time to respond to it. New Contention 3: Wasteful Governments Private dealings - that is, not government ones - account for 83% of economic relationships between the industrialised world and the developing world [1]. The AEI places it slightly lower but still acknowledges that the vast majority - 77% - of aid flows to the developing world from private means, including investment and philanthropy [2] - two methods practiced by private individuals more than charitable organisations. Again, philanthropy is likely to decline if billionaires were to be forced to give away their money, thereby throwing more money into government hands and increasing possibilities of corruption, fraud, and waste. In response to those organisations, I again assert that the wealthy can - and in many cases, already do - fund/donate to them of their own volition. I look forward to your responses in the next round! [1] http://www.hudson.org... [2] http://www.aei.org...