TED Conversations

John Locke

This conversation is closed.

Is it the right of humanity to protect it's best interest at the expense of a select few?

If it is in society's best interest to redistribute wealth from billionaires in order to feed millions of starving children, if it is in society's best interest to lower the price of a cure to a fatal disease the kills millions at the expense of the people who created the cure, if it is in society's best interest to move a select few people away from their homeland because oil has been discovered, does society have the right to do so?

In other words, if a large group of people can benefit at the expense of a few innocent individuals, should the select individuals be expected to or be forced to comply in whatever way necessary in order to help a huge amount of people EVEN IF the select few do not want to?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 7 2013: How does it work to be a "billionaire"? Isn't your money employing people, giving people jobs, and thus preventing starving children? That's what I think.
    • Apr 7 2013: You are miss guided. The 100 most wealthy people in the world could end world poverty 4 times over. They require scarecity as a control mechanism. Without scarecity the value of commodities decreases and the whole system does not work. The West wastes enough food to feed all the starving people, but the starving can't afford the food. When the current fiat monetry system collapses, and it will, we will see how abundant food etc. really is.
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2013: I'm thinking they could not end it, Lee, because if they simply gave all their money away to poor people then they would have no money to employ people, keep businesses running, and so on. So the business world would collapse or take a major hit.

        Rather than encouraging scarcity, I think rich people work really hard and reduce scarcity, without rich, hard-working people you would have more scarcity, not less. The human race needs leaders, and rich people are leaders, they lead through hard work and risk-taking, they work harder and take more risks than others, and they do also get more rewards.

        Are you jealous of rich people?
        • Apr 8 2013: Firstly, I am not suggesting that the wealthy elite are going to give their money away, they will not.

          However, they have accumulated their wealth through inheritance and build on it by buying assets that ordinary people can not afford to buy. Then, they earn interest on their accumulated assets and use tax havens to avoid paying their share of taxes. This does not involve any hard work or the employment of people.

          Because of this, the richest one per cent has increased its income by 60 per cent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process.

          Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

          In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left.

          From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour.

          For instance, closing tax havens – which hold as much as $32 trillion or a third of all global wealth – could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues.

          I am simply suggesting that It's time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite.

          In addition, what risks do the banking elite take for example. They fail in their business and then are bailed out by their government cronies. Then the poor people have to pay for their failure through higher taxes, reduces state funding.

          With regards to scarecity, it's a myth. Many nations can’t realize their full food production potential because of corruption and the gross inefficiencies caused by inequitable ownership of resources.

          Am I jealous of rich people ? No, I am Buddhist, I live a comfortable and content life without over-indulgence.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2013: Well, I don't know if the large majority inherited their wealth. I would think many people work hard and simply raise themselves. My parents started out with nothing, worked very hard, and ended up in the "1%." But you know, Mr. Park, if you inherit some money and then start buying more assets, that is not effortless. Buying assets is hard, you have to do the research, possibly move money around or borrow money if the asset is large enough, manage whatever current assets you have plus whatever new ones you acquire, and when you buy new assets take the risk that they may fail. All of this entails much work, and risk-taking. Even if you never buy new assets, simply managing the old ones successfully takes a lot of work as well. Inheritance is not a magic key to living in effortless luxury. And the things you do as you manage an inheritance do employ people, in many cases lots of people.
        • Apr 9 2013: I'm pleased for your parents and for you.

          However, at least $21tn is hidden from taxman by global elite - as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together. This is a conservative figure, some sources say it could be $32tn or higher.

          For many developing countries the cumulative value of the capital that has flowed out of their economies through corruption and tax avoidance since the 1970s would be more than enough to pay off their debts to the rest of the world.

          The problem here is that the assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments.

          £6.3tn of assets is owned by only 92,000 people, or 0.001% of the world's population – a tiny class of the mega-rich.

          Countries around the world are under intense pressure to reduce their deficits and governments cannot afford to let so much wealth slip past into tax havens.

          Closing down the tax loopholes exploited by multinationals and the super-rich to avoid paying their fair share will reduce the deficit. This way the government can focus on stimulating the economy, rather than squeezing the life out of it with cuts and tax rises for the 99% of people who aren't rich enough to avoid paying their taxes.

          Assuming the £13tn mountain of assets earned an average 3% a year for its owners, and governments were able to tax that income at 30%, it would generate a bumper £121bn in revenues – more than rich countries spend on aid to the developing world each year.

          Leaders of G20 countries have repeatedly pledged to close down tax havens since the financial crisis of 2008, when the secrecy shrouding parts of the banking system was widely seen as exacerbating instability.

          I do not have much more space left so I shall ask for a response to this issue before moving on.

          Is this not corrupt? Is this not greed? Is this not contributing to scarecity and poverty?
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2013: You raise some good points but I would easily say that many people would much rather simply retain their wealth as benefactors of wealthy relatives than work at minimum wage jobs to support their 5 children on meager wages and food stamps.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: It seems obvious that you are a believer of the "trickle-down-effect" and while your argument has some validity to it, there is extremely large amounts of evidence that supports the idea that wealth and resources are much more useful and maximized in the hands of many compared to the hands of few. Yes, billionaires run businesses, but a millionaire can run just as great of a business, is there really a reason to provide them with that extremity of wealth while it could go to many more people who would certainly need it more?
      • Apr 11 2013: I am not a believer in the trickle down effect, I strongly advocate consigning money to the history books.

        People do not want money, they want access to clean water, food, shelter, education etc.

        Our financial system is not an economy. It's a system of control based on fiat money and debt slavery that requires unlimited growth from finite resources.

        When the system has used up all the resources, polluted all the water, destroyed all the arable land, destroyed all the rain forests, eliminated most living species on earth and wiped out nations through wars over diminishing resources, what value will fiat money hold then.

        This financial system is just a game. That's all it ever has been. It's a game the elite play with us for their own amusement.

        The only currency that has any real value is gold and silver.

        For instance. If every pound in the UK economy went towards paying off the nations debt, we'd still owe the banks £308bn. And I believe it's worse for Americans.

        The money doesn't even exist. We're all slaves to the banks now.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2013: This was directed towards Greg, sorry for the confusion but thank you for your ideas.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.