super.bueno Posted January 16, 2014 Author Posted January 16, 2014 And you know this to be true about me? Let me get this straight: In a thread you created titled "Should Inheritance be Abolished?," you are now claiming as rightfully yours, the property of your ancestors? Is that right? If I am against inheriitance, that doesnt mean my grandfather was. And you know this to be true about me? Let me get this straight: In a thread you created titled "Should Inheritance be Abolished?," you are now claiming as rightfully yours, the property of your ancestors? Is that right? There is no you, and there is no me in that example, a made up story ... leave it... Its all good troll cheiftain, its all good.
ThomasDoubts Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 If I am against inheriitance, that doesnt mean my grandfather was. There is no you, and there is no me in that example, a made up story I understand it's a hypothetical situation. That doesn't change anything about how you said you would react to the hypothetical situation you created. Your grandfather has nothing to do with this. By your argument, if he were for inheritance, he's part of the problem. You would have no right to any inheritance he left you. You told me you would find me, and that absolutely nothing could save me from you. You told me you would use violence to reticfy a situation whereby property was stolen, but to which you, by your argument, never had any rightful claim to begin with. Do you not see the hypocrisy of arguing to abolish inheritance and simultaneously claiming a right to your ancestors property?
super.bueno Posted January 16, 2014 Author Posted January 16, 2014 I understand it's a hypothetical situation. That doesn't change anything about how you said you would react to the hypothetical situation you created. Your grandfather has nothing to do with this. By your argument, if he were for inheritance, he's part of the problem. You would have no right to any inheritance he left you. You told me you would find me, and that absolutely nothing could save me from you. You told me you would use violence to reticfy a situation whereby property was stolen, but to which you, by your argument, never had any rightful claim to begin with. Do you not see the hypocrisy of arguing to abolish inheritance and simultaneously claiming a right to your ancestors property? It really is hypocrisy when you are explaining it like that. You ve written and I quote: If the victim of the crime is dead, and the perpetrator of the crime is dead, how exactly can justice be done? I am not going to find you, not because of the wealth which was supposed to be transferred to me, but because your whole freaking family for couple of generations was living fat from a great theft and human tragedy. Since I cannot prove my justice, and since I have my human pride, and as I ve already told you there is no law institution ( domestic or international ) that would stand on my side.
ThomasDoubts Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 You are not voluntarily going to give back what is mine, and what my ancestors had built and saved for centuries That sure looks like a claim of ownership to me.
super.bueno Posted January 16, 2014 Author Posted January 16, 2014 You are not voluntarily going to give back what is mine, and what my ancestors had built and saved for centuries That sure looks like a claim of ownership to me. +1 for you, I admit that it could look like a claim of ownership, but its not. Why? Becuase in one point of time in our case the first half of 20th century certain group of people aka german national socialists, and lets face it majority of german population in those times decided who is worth of living and who is not. Your grandfather Hans, a war criminal flees to Latin America with substantial wealth stolen from jewish families ( not only jewish, everyone who they marked as non-arian ) , uncluding my family, somehow marries an american or canadian woman. Story continues.........2014 young John ( Hans grandson ) is driving his silver metallic porsche ( not due to his intelect, entrepreneurship, or a specific skill, but because of family;s fortune ) to a Snoop Doggs birthday party, on the other hand you have Jacob a warehouse worker in Poland intelligent, ambitious, but without a real oportunity ), he is earning enough to pay rent and food. Tell me please, do you consider this hypotetical situation to be normal ( not because of the money ), or Jacob has to find a way to reclaim what is his by right? The problem is that we have to pay for everything, since we are living in this sick world, why would I be a squirrel surrounded by wolves, if if he ( Jacob ) had at least a bit of brain he has to react like a wolf. If we would live in a world where the relations both social and economical would be as Jacob see it, then there is absoulutely no need for inheritance. By inheritance I consider enourmous accumulation of money and wealth. If a person is going to inherit a family house, fathers workshop, or a small piece of land thats absoulutely ok for me.
LanceD Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 You are so smart, you are my idol. I write you that entire response and this is what you give me? lol You sir obviously have zero interest in actually debating ideas and simply want to spout your particular brand of communism hoping to get converts. I will remember you and engage no further in any thread of yours.
super.bueno Posted January 16, 2014 Author Posted January 16, 2014 I write you that entire response and this is what you give me? lol You sir obviously have zero interest in actually debating ideas and simply want to spout your particular brand of communism hoping to get converts. I will remember you and engage no further in any thread of yours. Dont be such a brat, I know that you need attention. if I am a communist then you shouldnt call me sir, but comrade Why do you have a need to put stickers on people ( communist, not communist does it matter really? ) I am a lone wolf, I am presenting my ideas no isms involved. First and foremost correct me if I am wrong but you sir do not know what communism is all about right? Be honest, dont google ,, communism I apologize, but I have a strong feeling that you dont have a clue what libertarian idea is all about as well. If you think, that libertarian philosofy means that you should get rid of a state repression , and enjoy bigger income then I congratulate you. Why do we have to compete like this, we are grown ups, arent we? Peace brother BtW If you want bring it on, i am more than ready to start a debate on any given subject, I guess we are both fighting for a better world. I guess so...
cab21 Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 family can be simply a form of trade, really a voluntary one. wealth gained by free trade, can be distributed by free trade, and giving to family members can be free trade. now stolen wealth is a different story, and paying back stolen wealth can be part of justice, but that's a separate issue than the free trade of family with created wealth rather than stolen wealth.
ThomasDoubts Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 +1 for you, I admit that it could look like a claim of ownership, but its not. Why? Becuase in one point of time in our case the first half of 20th century certain group of people aka german national socialists, and lets face it majority of german population in those times decided who is worth of living and who is not. Your grandfather Hans, a war criminal flees to Latin America with substantial wealth stolen from jewish families ( not only jewish, everyone who they marked as non-arian ) , uncluding my family, somehow marries an american or canadian woman. Story continues.........2014 young John ( Hans grandson ) is driving his silver metallic porsche ( not due to his intelect, entrepreneurship, or a specific skill, but because of family;s fortune ) to a Snoop Doggs birthday party, on the other hand you have Jacob a warehouse worker in Poland intelligent, ambitious, but without a real oportunity ), he is earning enough to pay rent and food. Tell me please, do you consider this hypotetical situation to be normal ( not because of the money ), or Jacob has to find a way to reclaim what is his by right? The problem is that we have to pay for everything, since we are living in this sick world, why would I be a squirrel surrounded by wolves, if if he ( Jacob ) had at least a bit of brain he has to react like a wolf. If we would live in a world where the relations both social and economical would be as Jacob see it, then there is absoulutely no need for inheritance. By inheritance I consider enourmous accumulation of money and wealth. If a person is going to inherit a family house, fathers workshop, or a small piece of land thats absoulutely ok for me. It's not his by right if inheritance is universally wrong. Could you precisely define enormous wealth? Of course not, nobody can; any value you pick would be subjective. How about the family house, and a vacation home? How about your father's 2 workshops? How about whatever a "small" piece of land is, plus 12 square meters? Either there are principals or there are not. Your arguments, definitions, and proposals are either subjective or untilitarian. Quit it, it's makes principaled argumentation impossible.
super.bueno Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 It's not his by right if inheritance is universally wrong. Could you precisely define enormous wealth? Of course not, nobody can; any value you pick would be subjective. How about the family house, and a vacation home? How about your father's 2 workshops? How about whatever a "small" piece of land is, plus 12 square meters? Either there are principals or there are not. Your arguments, definitions, and proposals are either subjective or untilitarian. Quit it, it's makes principaled argumentation impossible. You know there is no argument that cannot be relativized, what about 25 sq/m + 1, and what about 2 workshops and what about a small piece of land + 12 sq/m...I mean cmon... One last question: Do you find the fact that Chinese, Indian, Malaysian worker or a child gets 2 dollars per 12h shift, as long as you have cheap goods? family can be simply a form of trade, really a voluntary one. wealth gained by free trade, can be distributed by free trade, and giving to family members can be free trade. now stolen wealth is a different story, and paying back stolen wealth can be part of justice, but that's a separate issue than the free trade of family with created wealth rather than stolen wealth. Familiy can be simply a form of free trade, really volunatry one? Can you give me an example of how family can be a form of trade? It could be possible but between cyborgs, between human absolutely not, Is it like i am trading my sperm for a hot meal, and clean underpants every day, I mean I ve heard everything but this is.... Abolished by who? Abolished by free minded people between them. There should be no excessive wealth accumulation as long as you have homeless , as long as you have hungry people and single moms struggling every day, do you have a problem with that?
Magnus Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 There should be no excessive wealth accumulation as long as you have homeless , as long as you have hungry people and single moms struggling every day, do you have a problem with that?Yes. No one is entitled to take another person's productivity.
super.bueno Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 Yes. No one is entitled to take another person's productivity. So you re not willing to sacrifice a bit in order to have more righteous world. What if for example somebody just doesnt get a chance to express his/her productivity or talent, but its completely ok to you to use benefits of other peoples low cost labour? I bet that somewhere in China , right now there are at least 100 geniouses in whatever sphere of life working in some stinky factory, so you could buy nike, adidas, la coste for a low price. Are you willing to take those jobs back to America or Canada, but to pay far more than you are paying now? So you re not willing to sacrifice a bit in order to have more righteous world. What if for example somebody just doesnt get a chance to express his/her productivity or talent, but its completely ok to you to use benefits of other peoples low cost labour? I bet that somewhere in China , right now there are at least 100 geniouses in whatever sphere of life working in some stinky factory, so you could buy nike, adidas, la coste for a low price. Are you willing to take those jobs back to America or Canada, but to pay far more than you are paying now? Why do you think that 97% of the american professional sportsmen are african american, or why Brazil has the most talented players when it comes to soccer ( football ) ? You think this is because they are genetically more dominant than the others. Of course not, its because of the social environment in which they are living.
Magnus Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 So you re not willing to sacrifice a bit in order to have more righteous world. You didn't ask what I was willing to do. You asked what I had the right to do (or to refuse to do), or what I could be forcibly compelled to do. What I am willing to do is an entirely different question. As for a more righteous world, the level of righteousness in a society is not defined by its wealth distribution, but by the process by which wealth is created, destroyed and transferred -- i.e., the degree to which every person is free from aggression, particularly aggression that prevents them from pursuing businesses, freely engaging in commercial trades, confiscation of their property, and other forms of economic aggression. Some people are vastly more economically valuable than others. Some people want material wealth more than others. I don't care about wealth. I care about freedom from aggression. What if for example somebody just doesnt get a chance to express his/her productivity or talent, but its completely ok to you to use benefits of other peoples low cost labour? I bet that somewhere in China , right now there are at least 100 geniouses in whatever sphere of life working in some stinky factory, so you could buy nike, adidas, la coste for a low price. Are you willing to take those jobs back to America or Canada, but to pay far more than you are paying now? I stand 100% in favor of everyone being free to express his productivity and talent. I 100% oppose the many violent ways that the governments of the world prevent people from doing that. I'll pay whatever I choose to pay for shoes, depending on what's offered to me. I have no say in the matter as to where they are made, unless I am the one making them, which I'm not. Please explain exactly how the price I pay for Chinese-made shoes, the making of which I have no influence or control, is altered in any way by the property I may or may not have inherited from my father, or may or may not leave to my son in my will.
dayna j. Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Abolished by free minded people between them. There should be no excessive wealth accumulation as long as you have homeless , as long as you have hungry people and single moms struggling every day, do you have a problem with that? If you think that people should voluntarily decide to stop accumulating "excessive wealth" and contribute it to charity instead, that is just fine. But since you used the "A" word (abolish), I presume that you envision some sort of enforcement of this normative ethic. This changes the conversation considerably. If this is the case, then yes, I have a huge problem with it. If someone attempts to take my property by force, they should reasonably expect retaliation in kind. Someone else's need or desire does not override my right to control and maintain my property. It certainly does not give anyone else the right to dictate an arbitrary measurement of acceptable wealth which, when crossed, entitles certain members of society to initiate force against me in order to redistribute my property.
cab21 Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Familiy can be simply a form of free trade, really volunatry one? Can you give me an example of how family can be a form of trade? It could be possible but between cyborgs, between human absolutely not, Is it like i am trading my sperm for a hot meal, and clean underpants every day, I mean I ve heard everything but this is.... people can choose who to freely asosiate with a example can be two people choosing to be partners. those two people choose to raise a child that child choosing to have a relationship with the parents. once everyone here is a adult, the relationship between all of them is really a choice. early in the childs develupment its not so much of a free trade from the perspective of the child, who is not making such choices at all really, but when the person is making adult choices, the person can choose to leave and refuse any gifts or relationship with parents or a estate. two people that never have kids, can certainly be considered able to choose a voluntary relationship with voluntary wealth transfership. someone that never has kids can choose who gets the inheritance by free choice. it's a matter of family though voluntary action on the side of adults vs forced action on the side of adults.
super.bueno Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 You didn't ask what I was willing to do. You asked what I had the right to do (or to refuse to do), or what I could be forcibly compelled to do. What I am willing to do is an entirely different question. As for a more righteous world, the level of righteousness in a society is not defined by its wealth distribution, but by the process by which wealth is created, destroyed and transferred -- i.e., the degree to which every person is free from aggression, particularly aggression that prevents them from pursuing businesses, freely engaging in commercial trades, confiscation of their property, and other forms of economic aggression. Some people are vastly more economically valuable than others. Some people want material wealth more than others. I don't care about wealth. I care about freedom from aggression. I stand 100% in favor of everyone being free to express his productivity and talent. I 100% oppose the many violent ways that the governments of the world prevent people from doing that. I'll pay whatever I choose to pay for shoes, depending on what's offered to me. I have no say in the matter as to where they are made, unless I am the one making them, which I'm not. Please explain exactly how the price I pay for Chinese-made shoes, the making of which I have no influence or control, is altered in any way by the property I may or may not have inherited from my father, or may or may not leave to my son in my will. 1. Some people are vastly more economically valuable than others Says who? Were you able to attend some championship of this sort? If Nikola Tesla stayed in his village somewhere in Croatia , and didnt come to New York to realize his ideas, everything that we have in terms of electricity would exist , and he wasnt economically valuable at all, you have this examples throughout history. This is a ridiculous argument . 2. I'll pay whatever I choose to pay for shoes, depending on what's offered to me. I have no say in the matter as to where they are made, unless I am the one making them, which I'm not. Please explain exactly how the price I pay for Chinese-made shoes, the making of which I have no influence or control, is altered in any way by the property I may or may not have inherited from my father, or may or may not leave to my son in my will. Whats offered to you is 99,99% chinese I asked you a straight question ? I am trying to show you and its now more than obvious that you only care about the depth of your pocket and how shallow your arguments. Saying that you will pay whatever price for shoes, just explains your knowledge about external world and basics of economics. Checkmate. people can choose who to freely asosiate with a example can be two people choosing to be partners. those two people choose to raise a child that child choosing to have a relationship with the parents. once everyone here is a adult, the relationship between all of them is really a choice. early in the childs develupment its not so much of a free trade from the perspective of the child, who is not making such choices at all really, but when the person is making adult choices, the person can choose to leave and refuse any gifts or relationship with parents or a estate. two people that never have kids, can certainly be considered able to choose a voluntary relationship with voluntary wealth transfership. someone that never has kids can choose who gets the inheritance by free choice. it's a matter of family though voluntary action on the side of adults vs forced action on the side of adults. Ok I get it, is there anything in your life that is not subject to trade?
cab21 Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Ok I get it, is there anything in your life that is not subject to trade? government is one area of non free trade
LovePrevails Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 I believe excessive wealth should not be allowed to be transferred. I am categorically against the emergence of dynastic wealth accumulation. . It's totally against the public interest to have millionaires with so much money, that they don't know what to do with it on the one hand while others cannot pay their mortgage, medical bills and support their children. Anyhow... People should have to earn their way , not have it handed to them. Some might think that this is pure communism doctrine, but its really not at least its not what I meant. What I meant was: Why da fak would some idiot who inherited so much wealth, and believe me I saw a lot of these fuckers, have 5x, 10x, 67x, 1098x better starting platform in life than I do, without a single droplet of sweat? Of course that the right to manage your wealth how ever you consider is undisputed. Its not that I am jealous and almost never been,but lets face it I think it unbelievably stupid to have an institution of inheritance. I would like to live in a world where every man or woman is completely responsible for his or her own life , which means that by my standards you cannot be an intelectual , you cannot be a succesful person, parent or professional if you achieved that with the help of your family pedigre, money or influence. Problem is, an African child could say exactly the same thing about you. Have you given all your wealth away to childrne in the poorest areas of the world?
super.bueno Posted January 19, 2014 Author Posted January 19, 2014 Problem is, an African child could say exactly the same thing about you. Have you given all your wealth away to childrne in the poorest areas of the world? Fish stinks from the head down, and yes I would gather some money to feed a hungry child in Africa, or volunteer for 6 months for example. What about you sunshine? Why did i got -1 on this?
JamesP Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 I believe excessive wealth should not be allowed to be transferred. I am categorically against the emergence of dynastic wealth accumulation. . It's totally against the public interest to have millionaires with so much money, that they don't know what to do with it on the one hand while others cannot pay their mortgage, medical bills and support their children. Who am I to judge how much would they have to give. Everyone should be granted a decent platform to start with. Of course not everyone should be equal but lets say that the difference between the richest and the poorest should be approximately 20:1, and not like 100000000000000000000000000000:1 , its pretty easy to calculate what is decent and normal, and what is excessive and sick. Just savor that for a few minutes... just let that sink in...
LovePrevails Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Fish stinks from the head down, and yes I would gather some money to feed a hungry child in Africa, or volunteer for 6 months for example. What about you sunshine? Why did i got -1 on this? What about me? I don't hold the same political positions as you so I don't have to be congruent in my day to day principles with your political believes on the other hand I have been consistent with my own principles, I've volunteered on forest retoration projects and made myself available for over a hundred hours of counselling and relationship-coaching for free for people who could not afford it not saying that makes me a great guy, I wanted to do it to help and I got something out of it myself including experience and the warm fuzzy feeling of bonding over the stuff that really matters I also modelled what was possible in terms of taking practical steps to help improve the world we should all get as much as possible involved with the hands-dirty work of helping not just saying what the world should be like in tems of politics (like redistribution of wealth etc.)
dsayers Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Why are you guys still engaging somebody that uses personal attacks?
super.bueno Posted January 19, 2014 Author Posted January 19, 2014 What about me? I don't hold the same political positions as you so I don't have to be congruent in my day to day principles with your political believes on the other hand I have been consistent with my own principles, I've volunteered on forest retoration projects and made myself available for over a hundred hours of counselling and relationship-coaching for free for people who could not afford it not saying that makes me a great guy, I wanted to do it to help and I got something out of it myself including experience and the warm fuzzy feeling of bonding over the stuff that really matters I also modelled what was possible in terms of taking practical steps to help improve the world we should all get as much as possible involved with the hands-dirty work of helping not just saying what the world should be like in tems of politics (like redistribution of wealth etc.) Then we are on the same course.
Magnus Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Why are you guys still engaging somebody that uses personal attacks?It was over for me when, despite his having failed to articulate any principles, deductions, arguments or instances, he declared himself the winner, as though we were having some kind of debate. The chess metaphor was a nice touch, though.
EBTX Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 This thread raises an important and extremely fundamental issue ... whether property rights extend beyond the grave. In view of the fact that extremely great inherited wealth confers political power on someone who has not earned it by the consensus of the free market, it must be dealt with or Stefan's "gun wielding" DROs will be inherited by the children of wealthy parents who generally raise dysfunctional brats (who never experience a day's labor in their lives). The idea that these dysfunctional people will dribble away their fortunes in three generations is not true. They simply hire reasonably competent people to manage them. Large fortunes can easily become dynastic like the Rockefeller or Rothschild fortunes (maybe even Walmart). These dynastic "benefactors" do not necessarily engage in free market activities. Even the original Rockefeller had his competition ruthlessly suppressed by force. So you can imagine how far the fruit fell from that tree. They take in a dollar by free market appearance ... but in reality, their substance is force-fraud. Then they give ten cents to "cultural" pursuits to maintain the appearance. And ... they pay off those with the guns or employ them outright giving them their marching orders. There's plenty of dirty business in the free market too. The $64 question is how to filter it out. I have grave doubts that the DRO system will work because "evil will find a way" in most any system. But come back in a few thousand years and all the questions posed in this forum should be moot. Our problem is what to do about evil in our lifetimes.
cobra2411 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 The first question I have is how do you accomplish this without a state? The second question I have is are you really upset with the wealthy or that they abused and manipulated the statist system to get where they are? I know for me the inequality that exists under the current system of statism is what bothers me. Lawyers become rich abusing a legals system that keeps the common people out of it. Doctors and the medical industry employ monopolistic protections that are otherwise illegal in any other field to gain their wealth while destroying the lives of so many. Bankers and CEO's of large corporations enjoy special protections against prosecution and receive bailouts when their performance is bad. This is all courtesy of the state system. So you are upset that the state system can be abused and wealthy people can distance themselves from the non-wealthy so your solution is to enhance the state further?
RestoringGuy Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 It seems easy to abolish inheritance by logic if you believe the following. 1. When a will is executed, the writer of the will is dead. 2. Dead people have sentience equal to a rock. 3. Sentience is a primary factor in deciding property rights. Therefore, a dead person's ability to control property is equal to that of a rock. The only other way to dodge this conclusion is to hang on to a religious idea that something of them "lives on". It is not that inheritance is wrong. But an heir's morality seems equal to anybody else. Another alternative to inheritance is mutual agreement of all competing parties to share the loot. But ordinary inheritance simply has no moral basis.
st434u Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 super.bueno: In order to oppose inheritance you have to oppose donations, and in order to oppose donations, you have to oppose trade. This is basically the same as communism. You keep focusing on the right of the individuals who inherited the money to get it, and while I would absolutely defend their right to claim what was rightfully given to them, and oppose your trying to get in the way (the same way that I defend the right of the charity recipient to receive charity that was legitimately given to them); what about the right of those who accumulated the fortunes to give them to whomever they wish, and name who their heirs will be? Furthermore, building a large fortune in order to have your heirs live a better life is one of the main drivers of capital accumulation, as the planning for it extends past one's lifetime. By banning inheritance and just stealing everything from someone who died, what you will accomplish is that there will be a tendency for wealthy folks to start consuming all their fortunes as they reach old age. With this, the overall capital accumulation in the economy will be much reduced, and so will the productivity and standards of living. Furthermore, the drive to become very wealthy in the first place will also be greatly reduced, so the number of people who will accumulate such massive fortunes to begin with will be diminished. With these realizations, it is easy to see how the inheritance tax is the worst and most destructive of all taxes that the State engages in. What you're proposing here is basically a 100% inheritance tax. Also, why does it matter to you what the difference between the rich and the poor is? There is only one thing that can drive such a sentiment: envy. Would you prefer a situation where the difference in wealth between the very rich and the very poor is 10 million to 1, and everybody's standard of living is at a minimum of 5, with a mean of 8, or a situation where the difference is 20 to 1, but everybody's standard of living is at a minimum of 2, with a mean of 5?
dsayers Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 whether property rights extend beyond the grave Nobody suggested this at all. In fact, the capacity for reason is a requisite for property rights. In view of the fact that extremely great inherited wealth confers political power on someone who has not earned it Define "extremely great inherited wealth." Explain how political power, which is illegitimate, can be earned by anybody. The rest of your post speaks as if we don't know where dysfunction and evil comes from, but we do.
cab21 Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 a will is written by a living person, not a dead person.
jpahmad Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 super.bueno, your ancestors killed somebody for wealth. You might have to go back several generations, but you'll find it: murder, genocide, and exploitation. All our ancestors did these things. You wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't for these horrible events in the past. Your inheritance is life. Does this mean you owe anybody your life?
EBTX Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Nobody suggested this at all. In fact, the capacity for reason is a requisite for property rights. Define "extremely great inherited wealth." Explain how political power, which is illegitimate, can be earned by anybody. The rest of your post speaks as if we don't know where dysfunction and evil comes from, but we do. Extremely great would be in today's numbers ... something like a billion dollars. To inherit such a sum in money or property confers upon the recipient political clout that he did not earn. It is similar to being born the son of a duke and inheriting the castle (w/ serfs). If you inherit 20 million in today's dollars, you're not so formidable as there are plenty of people with similar fortunes earned as well as unearned. These therefore don't concern me at the political level. And ... many huge fortunes end up as charitable funds which are in fact a means of undermining civilization (Ford Foundation, etc). Excessive fortune can be self-sustaining as the Rothschild or Rockefeller fortunes and these people routinely do civilization great harm. And ... I haven't seen this discussed anywhere ... The largest bankers, who are now above legal scrutiny, type money into their own personal accounts at will. I don't mean by the publicly stated rules of banking (fractional reserve banking) but by the crude method of "just typing". They achieved this status by inheriting vast sums and buying all the people needed so they can lay back and do as they please. The requirement for getting their foot in the door is large scale inheritance as well as the "foundation scam". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUH5qbIBDC4 (~6 min.)
square4 Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I believe excessive wealth should not be allowed to be transferred. I am categorically against the emergence of dynastic wealth accumulation How does someone acquire excessive wealth? If it was justly obtained, then it was through voluntary transactions with other people. Those other people have regarded the exchange as beneficial; they considered the product or service more valuable than the money they had to pay for it; otherwise they would not have done it. If we want to prevent that people get excessively wealthy, then there is the option of not buying their products or services. By buying Microsoft products, people were making Bill Gates richer, one small step at a time. They could have said: It is more important that Gates does not get excessively rich, than that I have access to Windows, so I will use Linux instead. Many people have decided to buy nonetheless. The people that have bought a copy of the software have jointly transferred an excessive amount of wealth from their own wallets to the wallet of Microsoft. Is it fair for consumers to complain about excessive wealth, when each of them has contributed to it? On the other hand, if someone has acquired wealth through theft, then of course, he has to give back the property to the rightful owner. And if the thief has given the stolen property to his children, this does not make the children the rightful owners, no matter how many generations. A thief does not have valid ownership of the stolen goods, so he can never possibly transfer ownership.
RestoringGuy Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 How does someone acquire excessive wealth? If it was justly obtained, then it was through voluntary transactions with other people. Those other people have regarded the exchange as beneficial; they considered the product or service more valuable than the money they had to pay for it; otherwise they would not have done it. If we want to prevent that people get excessively wealthy, then there is the option of not buying their products or services. By buying Microsoft products, people were making Bill Gates richer, one small step at a time. They could have said: It is more important that Gates does not get excessively rich, than that I have access to Windows, so I will use Linux instead. Many people have decided to buy nonetheless. The people that have bought a copy of the software have jointly transferred an excessive amount of wealth from their own wallets to the wallet of Microsoft. Is it fair for consumers to complain about excessive wealth, when each of them has contributed to it? There is some notion of fraud inside software. Consumer buys with the understanding that they can switch vendors, like switching from Coke to Pepsi. After your files are saved in MS formats, your assets are almost frozen. Imagine if Coca-cola could own or control your body after you drink it, or hold your assets hostage somehow. They can also force updates, steal bandwidth with unwanted background processes, and lock your PC into Windows using UEFI. If there is fraud in software, I question whether the money was justly obtained.
Recommended Posts