A cursory look at the wealth disparity between the developed and the developing world can lead one to a very confronting conclusion. We have so much and yet they have so little. How is this fair? Generally speaking, this is how those on the left feel about the world and as such one of their main goals concerns the concept of ‘social justice’. Former New Zealand Prime Minister, now with the UN, Helen Clark, demonstrates this perception.
So the issue is how to get human development that will see it continue to rise for the world’s poorest people and people in developing countries. Because frankly human development in the West – we don’t need more cars, more TV, whatever. Our needs are by and large satisfied, although the recession has put a lot of strains on that.
We have enough of course, it’s time to share our wealth with others. Therefore, the UN is justified in taxing us to the degree to which they see fit and redistributing that according to their ideas of social justice.
The UN is heavily invested in this ideal and the Agenda 21 program reflects this.
Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market…Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of the society as a whole.
We can’t allow individuals to own their own land, because they will get wealthy. Therefore we should apply the infinitely more efficient principles of government in preference over the market, because bureaucrats obviously make better decisions than free people. Plus, if individuals own it, the rest of us don’t, and we can’t have that. Karl Marx wouldn’t be too impressed.
Bill Whittle explains the concept of wealth creation and produces the best reference I have seen on the subject.
When you look at the world through this perspective, you understand that the wealthy become so by producing that wealth, not stealing it. I asked before whether or not this is fair, and so the answer is both yes and no. It is fair because those who produce wealth are entitled to keep it. It is after all their property. However, it isn’t fair because we in the West are fortunate enough to live in countries that enable the human engine of wealth creation, or at least countries that once did. Hence we can see that the solution to the wealth disparity in the world is not wealth redistribution, but wealth creation and the tools which enable it to occur; free market and private property rights.
Similarly, the ownership of land leads to the concentration of wealth because it can be used to produce it. It doesn’t take all the wealth in the world and gift it to those fortunate enough to possess land.
As we approach the Rio 2012 summit, it is disturbing to see such anti-capitalist assertions coming from those at the UN, those who seek to gain more power over us. It is disturbing to see how little some of these understand the concept of wealth creation.
Climate Nonconformist 
They don’t understand it because most of them have never created any wealth. They have gotten it from others throught taxation or creating NGO’s who suck up wealth produced by others. I wonder how many cars, tvs, houses, vacation homes, these so-called anti-capitalist possess. It’s “other” people have enough, not them. They get a special pass because they are smarter and thus deserve more rewards, right?