The concept is simple. Having a billion dollars is grossly asymmetrical to any person’s means of living. Nobody is ever going to need that much money. Not only that, it’s also a reward that’s blown way out of proportion. It is absolutely ridiculous to think we have a person worth half a trillion dollars while an overwhelming percentage of the world’s population lives under the poverty line, uncertain of their survival. In my opinion, being opposed to this motion is indefensible but I’m curious to see what you have to say.

I understand your point but the topic does not say ‘we should ban billionaires’. It denies the existence of the billionaires in the first place. So logically, there has to be a system in place that prevents any person concentrating that much wealth. So we are both in agreement that hard measures aren’t the way to go. Are you sure that preventing the existence of billionaires and incentivising innovation are mutually exclusive? I would disagree. In fact, if we look at history, the biggest contributors to science, research and philosophy were not really known to be enormously wealthy men. Legacy, passion and a genuine desire for human advancement was enough for most of them. This is where we could really get creative as a society in terms of finding better ways to incentivise innovation. The reward is insanely asymmetrical in the first place. We all know innovation isn’t usually the work of a single person. It almost always takes a village. So why is it that we see the owners receive a lion’s share of the pie while the people who actually put in the work to make their ideas real are given crumbs? It’s because capitalism does not reward hard-work as much as it values ownership.

Again, nobody is talking about sending a SWAT team to every house in Beverly Hills and seizing the assets of every billionaire in town. That’s not what the topic says. It simple states that billionaires ‘should’ not exist. Which implies that there is already a system in place that prevents it from happening. Also, lets be honest here for a second. Do you really think the wealth of all billionaires is being used productively to better the lives of the people? I disagree. The biggest argument against that is the enormous wealth inequality in the United States. It is absolutely shocking to say there are actual homeless people-let alone unemployed ones-in the largest economy in the world. I agree that we can’t put all billionaires in the same basket. There’s a big difference between Bill Gates and Vladimir Putin, for example. However, the current system leaves that part to the good will of said billionaire. And that’s not an ironclad system. A better solution would be to develop a system that has symmetrical rewards for work done. One that has stronger coordination between the public (via government) and private entities.

You are right. We don’t have the system yet. However, were the current systems always in place throughout human history? No. We establish systems, we revisit them and we fix what needs to be fixed. That’s how society moves forwards. That’s how we moved from feudalism to capitalism. I completely agree that abruptly banning billionaires and seizing their assets are not the way to go. A good system doesn’t let that happen though. It fixes things smoothly, without a bloody coup. There have absolutely been great entrepreneurs that built companies that are immensely valuable to not just their countries but the entire world. However, if we’re being honest, none of them started from the streets. Elon Musk’s family owned emerald mines in South Africa. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg come from well-off families. While their creativity, risk-taking and competence is appreciated, their dreams wouldn’t have realised without capital. Which goes back to my earlier point of capitalism rewarding ownership way more than risk and hard-work. I agree that reinvested wealth benefits a lot of people. New jobs get created, older ones become more valuable, innovation and research takes place. I’m not denying that. I’m asking whether all of that could be achieved without such an asymmetrical reward system. I believe it is possible but difficult. But that’s my whole point. Given what’s at stake, we should definitely invest in giving the difficult part a try.

I sound like a broken record repeating this so much but nobody is ‘banning’ billionaires. We are discussing the moral, ethical and functional reasons against their existence in the first place. I think your COVID vaccines argument is a bad example here. Give me one reason why the R&D for that couldn’t be subsidised by the government? In fact, that would be even more efficient in terms of urgency due to civic pressure on politicians and leaders. That’s not really a case for billionaires, is it? See, the gradual, intelligent shift in the system I have in mind doesn’t really let everything get torn down. I think that’s where you’re missing my point. I am simply asking whether billionaires should exist or not? If not, then there are many ways we could tweak or redesign the system smoothly so that it shifts towards a more symmetrical approach. I think human beings have enough creativity to achieve that. In the end, I want to clearly state that I am not denying the value that the current system holds. It has been pretty successful in terms of value production, innovation and advancement. However, I believe that preventing the deaths of children and ensuring the basic survival and safety of people around the world takes precedence over that.