The ultimate redpill

>Oxfam published a startling report showing that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion.

>the lower half of the global population possesses barely 1% of global wealth, while the richest 10% of adults own 86% of all wealth, and the top 1% account for 46% of the total.

> “Ultra high net worth individuals” — the wealth management industry’s term of art for deep pockets worth more than $30 million — hold an astoundingly disproportionate share of global wealth. These wealth owners own 12.8 percent of total global wealth, yet represent only a tiny fraction of the world population.

>The middle class in the United States has less than half the wealth share of middle classes in much of the rest of the developed world.

>As of March 2016, Forbes reported that the world hosted 1,810 billionaires, over double the 793 billionaires Forbes counted in 2009, at the depth of the Great Recession. These 1,810 billionaires together hold $6.5 trillion in wealth.

>Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.

>At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.

>More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening

>According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.

>Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

fuck off commie go to your cave..
>>>/reddit/

>Based on enrollment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57 per cent of them were girls. And these are regarded as optimistic numbers.

>Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names

>Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen

>An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide

>Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation

Get a job favelanigger

>Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.

>More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.

>Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.

>1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)

>Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea

>To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003

>For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3),400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5),270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)

>Worldwide,10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation

>Rural areas account for three in every four people living on less than US$1 a day and a similar share of the world population suffering from malnutrition. However, urbanization is not synonymous with human progress. Urban slum growth is outpacing urban growth by a wide margin

>

>Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In 2005, one out of three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion people) was living in slum conditions.Source

The 1% can pay their children’s university fees upfront. For the rest of us, it is debt. And, in recent years, the top doctors and teachers have become increasingly like the rest of us. There has always been a top 1%, but in the past it contained a wider range of people, including many who were respected more for the jobs they did. And the 1% is taking more and more.
t is very hard to justify your huge wealth unless you see people beneath you as less deserving. Once the wealth gaps become very large, it is easier to get through the day if you see them as less able, less special. When earlier this month the civil society minister Brooks Newmark told people involved in charities that they should “stick to their knitting” rather than concern themselves with what might be causing the problems they were trying to remedy, he was exhibiting just such a “don’t worry your pretty little head” attitude.
At the extreme, the less fortunate may not be seen as people at all. That was the finding of a study from Princeton University in which MRI scans were taken of several university students’ active brains while they viewed images of different people. Researchers saw that photographs of homeless people and drug addicts failed to stimulate areas of the brain that usually activate whenever people think about other people, or themselves. Instead, the (mostly affluent) students reacted to the images as if they “had stumbled on a pile of trash”.

why do you imply that its the duty of others to take care of the third world? why cant they do it themselves

Libs don't consider rich people the bourgeoisie

They consider working class whites the bourgeoisie

From there, a question arises: if God initially gave the entire earth to mankind to own in common, then how can you ever have individual property? Or, to borrow a line from Locke, since the earth is given to mankind in common, “it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing.” The correct answer to this question, reached by Proudhon but not Locke, is that the only way to move from universal common ownership to individual private ownership is through theft. When an individual appropriates pieces of the earth (e.g. land) out of the commons and into private ownership, that individual steals from everyone else. Everyone else’s ownership share in that piece of the earth is taken from them, violently and without their consent.


At this point, someone might try to get out of this outcome by saying that they don’t believe in initial common ownership. But that’s not really crucial to the argument.

Even under the hypothetical stories libertarians tell (“fact-defective potential explanations” in Nozick’s parlance) about how property can originate, the fact is that at the initial point in time, everyone can access and use every single piece of the earth at their will. There are no restrictions. You can move about the world freely. Nobody can stop you. You truly have negative liberty in the sense that it would be wrong to interfere with your bodily movements.

But then something curious happens. Somehow (regardless of how its justified), individuals are permitted to appropriate pieces of the world privately. The upshot of such appropriation is that everyone else’s previously-existing ability to access and use the appropriated piece of the world is stolen from them without their consent. Those who do not go along with having their access and use stolen from them are met with violence. This is theft. Access and use, both valuable things, are taken from people at the barrel of a gun.

You should be proud because you helped them to accomplish this goal while sacrificing millions of your own men in this case

Congratulation, brazil, america and eternal anglo

Praise the billionairs, islam and the future of the brown skin

I would love to know how proud your ancestors are and especially the ones that sacrificed their lives for the realization of this glorious goal

Poor people need to die

what the fuck retard
BOLSOMITO2018

How many of those 85 are Jews?

Not the first world population, but the elite, is a main cause of poverty in the third world

Over the last century, the United States government has often provided, and continues to provide, financial assistance, education, arms, military training and technical support to numerous authoritarian regimes across the world. A variety of reasons have been provided to justify the apparent contradictions between support for dictators and the democratic ideals expressed in the United States Constitution.

Prior to the Russian Revolution, support for dictators was often based on furthering American economic and political priorities, such as opening foreign markets to American manufacturers. Following the rise of communism, the United States government also began to support authoritarian regimes that it felt were combating movements aligned with communism, including socialist and democratic socialist movements, especially in Latin America.[1][2] Such assistance continued despite the belief expressed by many that this contradicted the political ideals espoused by the US during the Cold War.[3] Support was also geared toward ensuring a conducive environment for American corporate interests abroad, such as the United Fruit Company or Standard Oil, especially when these interests came under threat from democratic governments.[4][3] Support for authoritarian regimes has been justified under various ideological frameworks as well, including the Truman Doctrine, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine and the "War on Drugs".[4]
.

In before people say this is the fault of capitalism and not the fault of abandoning capital-backed currency.

Fiat money is the biggest meme ever.

From the 1980s onwards, the United States government began to fear that its interests would be threatened by the increasingly popular Islamist movements in the Middle East, and began to work to secure cooperative authoritarian regimes in the region, while isolating, weakening, or removing, uncooperative ones.[5] In recent years, many policy analysts and commentators have expressed support for this type of policy, with some believing that regional stability is more important than democracy.[6][7] The United States continues to support authoritarian regimes today. However, international relations scholar David Skidmore believes that increased public pressure is motivating a shift away from supporting authoritarian regimes, and towards supporting more consensual regimes instead.

You're rambling bitchcakes. Make a coherent case rather than spewing cherrypicked contextless factoids.

In any case, I bet your proposed solution of course will be a form of socialism that massively raises taxes on the middle class, as every single other implementation it has done, possibly with a side of having the rich carve out exemptions or move their money out of your government sphere.

The reason I bring up the fact that property is theft is because most actually-existing libertarian arguments are premised upon the idea that so-called laissez-faire capitalism is somehow voluntary and liberty-respecting. It is, of course, neither. The institutions that make up laissez-faire capitalism, the institution of private property especially, are imposed involuntarily on populations whether they want them or not. And to the extent that such involuntary impositions are enforced by violently attacking other human beings when they don’t comply, they are liberty-infringing.

This is not a novel point of course. Robert Nozick, an exception in the libertarian sphere, was very explicit about recognizing that the appropriation of property is liberty-destroying. He justifies such brutal attacks on human liberty with his paternalistic non-worsening proviso (that incidentally entails Rawlsian egalitarianism), but we can leave the particulars of that aside here.

Although it’s not novel, raising the point kills the voluntarist (and dare I say libertarian) justification for “libertarian” institutions. This then forces any such institutions to be justified on other grounds. And there aren’t any.

>Running anything on a basis where inputs are more valuable than outputs
There is a reason non-productive organizations do not last.

If a non-profit believed that the value of inputs given forth was not worth the desired output, they would cease to operate.

>But human life is infinitely valuable!
Why?


>Lockean Proviso
>Correct answer

Property belongs to those who claim it and can maintain that claim, you retarded commie monkey.

>You don't own nothing goyim!.jpg
If only you kike parasites only had one neck.

>property is theft

Tax based on EARNINGS rather than SPENDING is theft.

Oh god, you're copypasting a fucking wikipedia article, and lesbian multicultral maoist commie manifestos trying to convince libertarians to be commie.

Did the favela water parasites give you the vapors?

What I like about Sumner’s post is that he illustrates this perfectly. Sumner cannot (nor has he ever tried to) justify libertarianism on non-theft, voluntarist, non-aggression grounds because, as we see above, property is theft. So instead he claims he is a “utilitarian libertarian.” Under this view, the proper aim of constructing economic institutions is to maximize utility. Then, with that aim established, it is asserted that as an empirical matter, so-called libertarian institutions do that.

But they don’t. Most significantly, the libertarian opposition to transfers (sometimes called “redistribution”) cannot be defended under a utilitarian banner. What does Sumner do about this? He gives up the libertarian opposition to transfers, noting that he supports “moderate redistribution.” As he must!

Yet this runs afoul of core commitments of actually-existing libertarianism. There are a handful of libertarians who follow the Nozickian paternalist libertarianism that support one-time redistribution to right past wrongs, but few libertarians support the kind of on-going perpetual transfer institutions that utilitarianism requires. Sumner’s utilitarianism has him advocating something that isn’t libertarianism because utilitarianism (like every other common normative framework) does not support libertarian institutions.

> they can't see that same people enforce "diversity"
> implying anyone gives a fuck about "world population" at all

You have nothing to lose but your chains. Down with the rich, it doesn't matter the religion, race, nationality. Down with the rich! Property is theft, you can only own what you can use, you can only own what you can occupy. The theatre of humankind has limited seats. If I take two of them, someone will have no sit.

Nationalist ego is burgeois ideology made to separate and create conflicts amidst the population, wich are utterly motivated by elite interests. There can only be justice when workers of the world unite.

Then why is Zimbabwe, the african nation that went with the Marxist revolution, such a shithole

People are always fearful or mistrusting of "them" and feel closer to "us." This is a part of our baked in consciousness, which can only be overcome through intense mind-melding, and even then a sense of tribalism will occur.

>Nationalist ego is burgeois ideology made to separate and create conflicts amidst the population
New Worlder spotted. Nationalism binds a people together under one flag, a country-wide tribe of people who all sing the same hymns. You can not, in a classical society, create conflicts among a nationalist people as they are all one people. These conflicts only occur when people betray their nation for another, whether that nation exists yet or not.

>You have nothing to lose but your chains
Actually I have my gold and silver (kept in my personal safe on my own, owned, premises) to lose.

>Down with the rich
Only acceptable if they are replaced with a new, enterprising rich.

>Property is theft
Taking something that someone owns or is legally owed is theft.

> you can only own what you can use
Everything can me used in some way.

>If I take two of them, someone will have no sit.
Why not just take one seat and sell the spare seat to the other person?