Redistribution of Wealth

Thank you for your argument."...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)."I suppose I didn't really touch on how this redistribution of wealth would be executed, but yes, inter-governmental agreement would be needed for it to happen. And also it isn't really "robbing billionaires of their money", leading me into my next point."...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?...what right do others have to invade their liberty and tell them what to do with it?"Who cares about 1000 or so billionaires' liberty after seeing the more than 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day (1)? As I have pointed out in every round so far, the billionaires will be PERFECTLY FINE if we leave them with nothing but 1 billion dollars. Those 3 billion people are NOT doing fine and for the vast majority of them, the situation they are in is NOT their fault! A redistribution of wealth definitely goes against the ideals of capitalism and does indeed invade on the billionaires' liberty, but look at where capitalism has gotten us: a world where the poorest 40% of the population have 5% of world income, while the richest 20% of the population have 75% of the world income (2). Sometimes the liberty of a few people has to be sacrificed for the benefit of the rest of humanity. And it isn't like we are doing something really cruel to those billionaires; they would still have a thousand times more money than most people could even dream of having. "...we do not have the right to stop them [the billionaires] from spending money on themselves and their families rather than on helping people in need."I suppose this becomes a question of morality. But as I said in the last argument, I don't see how it is acceptable to allow a thousand or so people uselessly stash up money for themselves while almost half of the world's population lives in desolate poverty. "Additionally, my opponent dropped the second half of my argument here regarding the de-incentivizing of the rich and poor to work."Sorry, I concentrated too much on the first half and forgot to address the second half. The poor wouldn't really be "de-incentivized" because, like I said last round, the money would not be handed to them for free; it would be used for programs that would "teach them how to fish" like micro-loans and free education. The rich wouldn't be de-incentivized either (unless they are totally greedy and souless), because if you already have everything you could possibly want in the world ($10,000 per day!), then why is helping the world be a better place not a good enough incentive to keep working? And anyways, they would still be getting a reasonable share from their companies' enormous earnings...Rebuttal to New Contention 3 (Wasterful Governments) - bullet point form-Just imagine, if those charities are able to make small differences with millions of dollars, then they would be able to make HUGE differences with billions of dollars-Individual governments wouldn't have a very big role to play in the redistribution. Since it would be an international effort, I assume that it would be handled by the UN, the biggest supranational organization out there so far, and the UN has actually historically been quite adept at handling finances (3)-We don't need billionaires to practice philanthropy if we already have the majority of their money."I again assert that the wealthy can - and in many cases, already do - fund/donate to them of their own volition."The problem is, that many don't. Out of the 1332 billionaires that there are, only 400 have pledged to give money (4), and out of those, very few have given donations in the billions (5).It is not morally fair for one group of people to have so much wealth when just a fraction of that wealth would allow them to live iin indescribable luxury for hundreds of years. It is especially not fair when there are billions of people who need that money infinitely more than they do. SOURCES(1) http://www.dosomething.org...;(2) http://www.globalissues.org...;(3) http://www.globalpolicy.org...(4) http://www.forbes.com...(5) http://www.forbes.com...