Should Inheritance be Abolished...?

[dsayers]

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.

 

Repeating yourself doesn't satisfy, refute, or even acknowledge the skepticism that was offered in response to what you're repeating.

 

Political power, repackaged as clout here to appear less violent, is not something that anybody can legitimately earn. You're saying that people that inherit a billion dollars will have a right to the initiation of the use of force that they didn't earn.

 

Why a billion dollars? Why not 999,999,999? What is the fundamental difference? Who decides? Why should we take interest in your opinion of a transaction that doesn't concern you? Like, so what if somebody gets something that they didn't earn. If what they got was legitimately owned by somebody that chose to give it to them, that has nothing to do with you.

[cobra2411]

Don't argue with ignorant people, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[st434u]

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.

I don't see the point in arguing against the inheritance tax (or inheritance ban) by claiming that people who inherit a lot of wealth will squander it. That seems to me to be an argument for the opposite side, if anything. If inherited fortunes won't be squandered and consumed, but rather grow larger, and used to fuel further capital investments, then that's great.About the Rockefeller fortune, there's a lot of misinformation in your interpretation of how John D. Rockefeller operated, and how he accumulated his fortune. It was actually the other way around, he was the genius entrepreneur who figured out how to best extract and refine oil, driving down the cost and benefiting his customers so much, that his competitors lobbied the State to break up his "monopoly", on the argument that they couldn't compete against Rockefeller's low prices.

 

(check this out if you want to know more: http://mises.org/daily/2317

)

 

It was only after the Rockefeller family was hit hard by the State that they began lobbying for protection themselves, and eventually became one of the most politically influential families in the US. The same goes for Bill Gates from Microsoft, and many others. It's not the accumulation of wealth that drove these people into the arms of the State, it was rather State violence used to steal their wealth, that forced them to start buying their own politicians. And once you start down that route for protection, it's easy to make the leap and make your politicians benefit you at the expense of everybody else.You seem to be suffering from the "Occupy Wall Street Syndrome"... Instead of looking at State power as the problem, (or at least the fact that this power is for sale), you see the fortunes of those who can profitably afford to buy the State power as the problem. You're not even holding the individuals who buy the State power responsible (let alone the State agents who sell it or the masses who support the system), you're just opposing anyone having that sort of wealth to begin with.That won't work. If you just prohibit people from making their own fortunes legally (or inheriting them, which is just about the same thing), all that will happen is that State power will either be sold on the black market, or it will be sold for political influence and other favors, and then you get total communism. 

Don't argue with ignorant people, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Well I think that was uncalled for and very offensive for no reason.

[EBTX]

If you inherit the family farm or a parts company that feeds General Motors, you don't inherit much in the political arena ... but ... to me ... inheriting a huge amount of money is logically equivalent to inheriting a title of nobility along with lands and castles. 

You have now an influence in the current political structure.

I can see your point however ... if ... there were no political structure at all and the world was a settled place ... permanently at peace ... then, it wouldn't matter. But this will not be true for perhaps several thousand years (if ever).

My concern is (theoretically speaking) over the span of the next couple centuries. And ... it's an intellectual interest only. I certainly won't be around to see how it turns out ... though i'd like to think my grandkids might live in a better world.

 

As I've come to understand it, Rockefeller used crude physical force against his competitors on occasion (hiring thugs to keep them out of the 'his' market) and was not what anyone would call a "good person" (rational) ... and was not the capitalist hero some suggest. 

Bill Gates is notorious for his swearing and loss of control in meetings and does not appear to be the rational person he projects in public. I don't know these people but from what I've learned about them ... I wouldn't want to know them.

 

My brother DID work with some very rich people and he said of them in general "It's good to have money but not too much" ... he having seen their drunkenness, debauchery and lack of concern for even their own welfare. They left that to him and others to take rational care of. Yet these types have the overall control of civilization. They are not the right people for that job. If they were, we would not be int he fix we are presently in ... not that they directly caused it ... but they are incapable of fixing it. You will never see Stefan getting a cash stipend from the Rockefeller foundation ... nor do they contribute to the spreading of anyone's rational opinions and inquiries.

 

Rich people generally breed dysfunctional children ... they breed conmen. Poor people generally breed dysfunctional children as well ... they become the thugs the rich people hire. There are numerous exceptions, granted.

[dsayers]

If you inherit the family farm or a parts company that feeds General Motors, you don't inherit much in the political arena ... but ... to me ... inheriting a huge amount of money is logically equivalent to inheriting a title of nobility along with lands and castles.

 

Repeating yourself doesn't satisfy, refute, or even acknowledge the skepticism that was offered in response to what you're repeating... still.

 

What you inherit is the property of others voluntarily given to you by them. Anything that is presumed beyond that would be a reflection of the observer, the society, etc. External sources. If you take issue with this, then you have to address the external sources, not the voluntary exercising of property rights.

 

You are simply repeating stuff you've heard. If you had arrived at this conclusion by way of sound methodology, you would be able to make the case and/or would welcome criticism in an attempt to revise your theory until it was as accurate as can be.

 

Also, the phrases "rich people" and "poor people," when used to indicate anything other than relative wealth, is collectivism. More wealth does bring more choices, but even that is an effect of the wealth, not inherent to it. Furthermore, more choices doesn't mean that what choices will be made can be predicted by the availability of more choices alone. The collectivization is therefore meaningless except to serve as an indication that you are simply repeating stuff you've heard and haven't scrutinized.

[cobra2411]

Well I think that was uncalled for and very offensive for no reason.

I define ignorance and ignorant people as those who intentionally avoid knowledge. That is the context of my statement. Using the more common definition I agree that it was harsh and I apologize. I need to be more careful with my use of words.

 

In my travels I have found that people who I consider ignorant don't want to challenge their thinking and will resort to circular logic, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments and many other tactics to get you to their way of thinking. Such discussions are doomed. 

[GRosado]

Wow this got really nasty really fast, why can't we have a discussion without disparaging insults. Love Peace & Chicken Grease all around

[RestoringGuy]

Political power, repackaged as clout here to appear less violent, is not something that anybody can legitimately earn. You're saying that people that inherit a billion dollars will have a right to the initiation of the use of force that they didn't earn.

 

Why a billion dollars? Why not 999,999,999? What is the fundamental difference? Who decides? Why should we take interest in your opinion of a transaction that doesn't concern you? Like, so what if somebody gets something that they didn't earn. If what they got was legitimately owned by somebody that chose to give it to them, that has nothing to do with you.

I have thought a lot about this kind of idea.  But I realize now the inheritor must initiate force against whoever finds the body.  Let's say I die with 1 billion bucks in my pocket, and you find my dead body.  By my atheistic way of thinking, my consciousness and any rights or contracts that emerge from it are gone.  You find the money abandoned.  So now my heirs must initiate force against you to retrieve the money.  They may have my will in hand, but you didn't sign it, so you are not bound by it.

 

The collectivists resort to many things, like circular logic and various unprincipled tactics, but they are more reasonable with seeing the errors of inheritance.  So far I have not found any anarchocapitalists who can explain inheritance, what principle it comes from exactly.  It is easy to assume that inhertance is legitimized by wills and family relations.  I do not believe God exists, therefore God cannot give us some eternal identities that allow our wills and inheritance itself to magically spill over into our non-living property after the owner's death.  Despite rigor in the living realm, anarchocapitalists lack an answer why inheritance is right.  The argument is stonewalled and inheritance is just recycled, much as theists recycle the absolute existence of God.

[cobra2411]

RestoringGuy, what you describe is chaos and is logically flawed. Those who argue that upon death all rights evaporate seem to forget that contracts are survivable. If I make a contract that when I die all my possessions go to Steve then the instant I finish with my last breath, all my possessions now belong to Steve. The fact that it may take days / weeks to complete the transfer is irreverent, they are all Steve's possessions. So if I die on the street with 1 billion dollars in my back pocket it isn't abandoned, it's Steve's property. 

 

Now, the idea of walking around with 1 billion dollars in my pocket is absurd. It physically won't fit. Also, most people who have any significant amount of money have taken steps to protect it. So lets say I'm driving the rare widget-mobile valued at 1 billion dollars. It will likely be registered with my DRO as it has a serial number and my DRO will likely be informed that should anything happen to me all my possessions will be transferred to Steve. If you, not being Steve, take my keys and try and sell the widget-mobile, you are going to run into problems because the DRO is going to come back stating that it's Steve's car and you have no authority to sell Steve's car. 

 

Lets assume I have a son, Johnny, who is a minor. I can create a contract with Steve that will execute the instant I die and temporarily transfer my possessions to Steve to hold for Johnny until he reaches a certain age. My contract is survivable and would be executed the instant I died, Steve is still alive and has signed a contract which remains enforceable. This is all standard DRO contract stuff. No need for guns. 

 

Lets take it a step further. You don't know me or Steve and you're unaware of any contracts. So you take the Widget-mobile. You have a responsibility to try and find out if it's owned. It is serialized and obviously something of value. So you call your DRO, give them the serial number and ask if there are any contracts on the vehicle. You keep it safe and in your possession and after a reasonable time no one comes to claim it, report it lost or stolen and there are no contracts registered with it then I would say you are free to dispose of it as you wish. On the other hand, since I would have registered it with my DRO and it's advantageous for DRO's to share serial numbers to prevent theft, your DRO would report that the vehicle is owned and under a DRO contract. When no one can reach me the DRO will likely take possession temporarily till they can sort out what's going on. You, being the finder can make a claim in case there is no forward contract. Within a reasonable time the paperwork will filter through from my executed will and it will become Steve's car. See, no state.

 

Now, smaller items that are not easily protected or serialized can be pilfered and it would be up to me to reasonable protect them and / or accept the loss. If I have a few hundred dollars and some cheap jewelry you may make off with it undetected. My bank cards will be password protected and any valuable jewelry will be serialized. 

[dsayers]

Let's say I die with 1 billion bucks in my pocket, and you find my dead body.  By my atheistic way of thinking, my consciousness and any rights or contracts that emerge from it are gone.  You find the money abandoned.  So now my heirs must initiate force against you to retrieve the money.

 

In the phrase, "initiation of the use of force," it's the initiation that is important. To recover stolen goods is not the initiation of the use of force. It is the collection of the positive obligation created by the act of theft. In this case, the very people the obligation was made to.

 

So you take the Widget-mobile. You have a responsibility to try and find out if it's owned. It is serialized and obviously something of value.

 

The way this is worded, it seems as if "something of value (subjective)" is a factor. I would argue that the factor is that, because "Widget-mobiles" do not exist in nature, to find one that you do not own is to understand that it is in fact owned by somebody else. I would not argue that the person who finds it is required to put forth effort to establish who the owner is. This is a positive obligation, which are immoral to place on somebody who has not voluntarily created it. However, choosing to take it, while knowing it must be owned by somebody, would be theft.

 

I do agree though that if reasonable efforts are made and no legitimate claimant steps forward, that you can morally claim ownership over it yourself. I also would go so far as to say that IF you took it for custodial purposes while you made an effort to establish who the owner is, then this behavior--though mechanically identical to theft of the same--would not be classified as theft.

 

These grey areas are why moral clarity is so important.

[RestoringGuy]

Lets take it a step further. You don't know me or Steve and you're unaware of any contracts. So you take the Widget-mobile. You have a responsibility to try and find out if it's owned. It is serialized and obviously something of value. So you call your DRO, give them the serial number and ask if there are any contracts on the vehicle. You keep it safe and in your possession and after a reasonable time no one comes to claim it, report it lost or stolen and there are no contracts registered with it then I would say you are free to dispose of it as you wish. On the other hand, since I would have registered it with my DRO and it's advantageous for DRO's to share serial numbers to prevent theft, your DRO would report that the vehicle is owned and under a DRO contract. When no one can reach me the DRO will likely take possession temporarily till they can sort out what's going on. You, being the finder can make a claim in case there is no forward contract. Within a reasonable time the paperwork will filter through from my executed will and it will become Steve's car. See, no state. 

Thank you for explaining.  You could have a one billion dollar coin made of californium.  I can explain why I think it is logically sound that contracts are invalidated upon death.  DRO, contracts, etc. act only as a proxy for physical being, to act as a stand in for vocalizing "I want this" while not presently holding an item.  Absent an immortal soul, my death brings an end not just to my body, but to me as an identity.  I'd be no more conscious than somebody else's multiple personality, perhaps even less so.  I could be just a pile of compost.  My heir cannot say they have contract with me, because I have no existence.  If you want, you could say the contract has some existence of its own, and the reader is allowed act as if dead people exist as owners, but it is fictionalizing in the sense that anybody could write an alternative contract.  At that point we don't care about who is the author in terms of mental presence, it is all about what cultural choices of what pieces of paper you or I prefer.If you and Steve have a contract that executes upon your death, or 1 millisecond later, who is the contract between exactly?  You don't exist.  I get the idea that you are saying the property transfers right at that instant of death.  Maybe you execute it 1 ms before death to play it safe. So who gets to be judge of when it was executed?  The dead guy and Steve cannot agree on this. Afterwards, it is only paper just as any contract is.  But now the paper does not match up with anybody's intent.  Now if the parties of a contract were still alive, you could ask them "where did this paper come from and how did it end up having your signature?"  It is legitimized by mutual consent, and your future credit rating, etc. all hinges on parties keeping their word.  But in the case of the dead there can be no consent.  Wills, like works of fiction, are artifacts with no proof they match up with anything real.  So in the case  where I found out your widget-mobile is serialized and registered, you're right I might have an obligation to give it up to Steve, but only if both our DRO's mutually agree to the same paradigm of inheritance.  But if they do not, and I continue to keep it, I am just saying it's ethical to do so.  In fact, if Steve tries to steal the item from me, with dead person's contract in hand, it is unethical (unless I am dead also).  Please note that the dead person has no DRO.  They are toast, so it as fictional as earth itself being a member of the DRO.The main point I make is property only exists by way of mental efforts, the contract only tries to copy our mental state, it has no life of its own, and unconscious people do not trade goods but they can only assert their rights when (and if) they wake up.  If a finder has to call up the DRO, wait for paperwork to filter through, etc., that's definitely a state because you cannot opt-out.  Otherwise you would be free to establish a DRO exclusively for the living, because living people are the only people who can reciprocate.  The principles inside the foundation of anarchocapitalism seem based on reciprocation ("It's wrong to steal because you want to keep the loot, so it's self-contradicting"). Death seems to render those principles partly invalid.  You can't want to keep stuff after death, you can't want anything, right?And if we go out on a limb and suggest some contracts are better than others, because they are signed by somebody who used to be alive, we now at least have to admit to forcing others to accept absolute and arbitrary cultural constructs.  It's not a purely principled approach, but an illusion of principle  I think we would be saying an eternal soul is present and, by not accepting a will, our memory of that eternal soul is being violated somehow.

In the phrase, "initiation of the use of force," it's the initiation that is important. To recover stolen goods is not the initiation of the use of force. It is the collection of the positive obligation created by the act of theft. In this case, the very people the obligation was made to.

 

There can be no theft of an unowned item.  An item ceases to be property upon death, because consciousness is what makes disputes over ownership possible.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

How many sophists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

[dsayers]

There can be no theft of an unowned item.  An item ceases to be property upon death, because consciousness is what makes disputes over ownership possible.

 

This is begging the question. The claim that property becomes unowned upon death of an owner who has arranged a conditional transfer of that property upon his death has been challenged. It has not yet been established.

[RestoringGuy]

This is begging the question. The claim that property becomes unowned upon death of an owner who has arranged a conditional transfer of that property upon his death has been challenged. It has not yet been established.

Why?  I never conceded such a transfer was possible.  I explained why it's impossible, being an act of religious faith that makes consciousness of dead people somehow real.  Even if it's possible, it does not prove it happens by way of contract.  The burden of proof is on whoever says the contract is good, because it is the contract that makes new distinctions of what obligations exist.

[cab21]

that does give the incentive to just murder people and take property though, if simply dying makes the property unowned and all contracts null and void

[cobra2411]

Thank you for explaining.  You could have a one billion dollar coin made of californium.  I can explain why I think it is logically sound that contracts are invalidated upon death.  DRO, contracts, etc. act only as a proxy for physical being, to act as a stand in for vocalizing "I want this" while not presently holding an item.  Absent an immortal soul, my death brings an end not just to my body, but to me as an identity.  I'd be no more conscious than somebody else's multiple personality, perhaps even less so.  I could be just a pile of compost.  My heir cannot say they have contract with me, because I have no existence.  If you want, you could say the contract has some existence of its own, and the reader is allowed act as if dead people exist as owners, but it is fictionalizing in the sense that anybody could write an alternative contract.  At that point we don't care about who is the author in terms of mental presence, it is all about what cultural choices of what pieces of paper you or I prefer.

 

If you and Steve have a contract that executes upon your death, or 1 millisecond later, who is the contract between exactly?  You don't exist.  I get the idea that you are saying the property transfers right at that instant of death.  Maybe you execute it 1 ms before death to play it safe. So who gets to be judge of when it was executed?  The dead guy and Steve cannot agree on this. Afterwards, it is only paper just as any contract is.  But now the paper does not match up with anybody's intent.  Now if the parties of a contract were still alive, you could ask them "where did this paper come from and how did it end up having your signature?"  It is legitimized by mutual consent, and your future credit rating, etc. all hinges on parties keeping their word.  But in the case of the dead there can be no consent.  Wills, like works of fiction, are artifacts with no proof they match up with anything real.  So in the case  where I found out your widget-mobile is serialized and registered, you're right I might have an obligation to give it up to Steve, but only if both our DRO's mutually agree to the same paradigm of inheritance.  But if they do not, and I continue to keep it, I am just saying it's ethical to do so.  In fact, if Steve tries to steal the item from me, with dead person's contract in hand, it is unethical (unless I am dead also).  Please note that the dead person has no DRO.  They are toast, so it as fictional as earth itself being a member of the DRO.

 

The main point I make is property only exists by way of mental efforts, the contract only tries to copy our mental state, it has no life of its own, and unconscious people do not trade goods but they can only assert their rights when (and if) they wake up.  If a finder has to call up the DRO, wait for paperwork to filter through, etc., that's definitely a state because you cannot opt-out.  Otherwise you would be free to establish a DRO exclusively for the living, because living people are the only people who can reciprocate.  The principles inside the foundation of anarchocapitalism seem based on reciprocation ("It's wrong to steal because you want to keep the loot, so it's self-contradicting"). Death seems to render those principles partly invalid.  You can't want to keep stuff after death, you can't want anything, right?

 

And if we go out on a limb and suggest some contracts are better than others, because they are signed by somebody who used to be alive, we now at least have to admit to forcing others to accept absolute and arbitrary cultural constructs.  It's not a purely principled approach, but an illusion of principle  I think we would be saying an eternal soul is present and, by not accepting a will, our memory of that eternal soul is being violated somehow.

 

There can be no theft of an unowned item.  An item ceases to be property upon death, because consciousness is what makes disputes over ownership possible.

Will's a work of fiction? Surely you jest. It is very easy to create a self authenticating will. You have two witnesses sign notarized affidavits validating that you are the one signing the will. The will itself is notarized. I know this is based on current law, but I have a hard time believing that a state is required to make a self authenticating document that proves to anyone who see's in in your absence that you signed it. If it works with a state, it will work without one. So the will is neither a work of fiction or is the author in question. It is simply a list of instructions and a variable for when those instructions are to be carried out. 

 

As far as the timing, 1 millisecond before or after is immaterial. A contract is executed when all parties involved sign said contract. When the terms go into effect is the question and in the case of a will it goes into effect when I die. All that is agreed upon while I'm still alive. 

 

I disagree that contracts are invalidated upon death. Lets say my wife dies and I contract with a local flower company to place flowers on her grave every year for her birthday for 20 years and pay in full for that service. If I die a year later are they morally absolved of their contractual obligations because I no longer exist? I don't believe so. In fact, many contracts specifically state that contracts survive the death of a party. Now if I contract with Steve to put flowers on my wife's grave for 20 years and both of us die then the contract dies as all parties no longer exist. As long as the contract has been executed and one party still exists then there is an obligation to that contract. DRO's would be bound to enforce all active contracts till they terminated. 

 

 

 

unconscious people do not trade goods but they can only assert their rights when (and if) they wake up.

False. I have a program that bids on ebay listings at any time I specify. I have won many an auction while I was sound asleep. Also, when I traded stocks I used limit orders to buy and sell and they would execute whether I was awake or not. That is no different than a contract. Once executed those involved have an obligation to follow it to completion. It doesn't imply that the contract is living, it's a set of instructions that all signatories have agreed to follow out. 

 

 

 

that does give the incentive to just murder people and take property though, if simply dying makes the property unowned and all contracts null and void

Yes, in my opinion it would make very good incentive to murder people to take their things. 

 

 

 

The way this is worded, it seems as if "something of value (subjective)" is a factor. I would argue that the factor is that, because "Widget-mobiles" do not exist in nature, to find one that you do not own is to understand that it is in fact owned by somebody else. I would not argue that the person who finds it is required to put forth effort to establish who the owner is. This is a positive obligation, which are immoral to place on somebody who has not voluntarily created it. However, choosing to take it, while knowing it must be owned by somebody, would be theft.

My point was that if you find something that you believe is owned by someone else then taking it would be theft. If you are interested in having said item then I believe the morally ethical thing to do would be to make a reasonable search for the owner and if that failed then you could claim ownership yourself. You are also free to leave it where it sits and walk on by... 

[RestoringGuy]

Will's a work of fiction? Surely you jest. It is very easy to create a self authenticating will. You have two witnesses sign notarized affidavits validating that you are the one signing the will. The will itself is notarized. I know this is based on current law, but I have a hard time believing that a state is required to make a self authenticating document that proves to anyone who see's in in your absence that you signed it. If it works with a state, it will work without one. So the will is neither a work of fiction or is the author in question. It is simply a list of instructions and a variable for when those instructions are to be carried out.

 

I disagree that contracts are invalidated upon death. Lets say my wife dies and I contract with a local flower company to place flowers on her grave every year for her birthday for 20 years and pay in full for that service. If I die a year later are they morally absolved of their contractual obligations because I no longer exist? I don't believe so. In fact, many contracts specifically state that contracts survive the death of a party. Now if I contract with Steve to put flowers on my wife's grave for 20 years and both of us die then the contract dies as all parties no longer exist. As long as the contract has been executed and one party still exists then there is an obligation to that contract. DRO's would be bound to enforce all active contracts till they terminated. 

When arguing with a collectivist, it is important to mention principles and logic.  You can say you want property, the collectivist can say they don't in whatever capacity, and it's a stalemate.  Only through deductive reasoning is the collectist proven wrong, and forced to deal with their incorrectness either in silence, our by repeating false arguments. The same thing happens with inheritance.  You have to more than want inheritance to be true, and they argue wills support it.  What is it that makes property possible in the first place?

The main argument in favor of property is that a thief wants to keep whatever they have stolen, so by keeping goods and not allowing their victim to keep goods, it's a performative contradiction.  It's "K and not K", so property cannot be denied.  This idea could be called reciprocation, because to be consistent you have to respect property rights in order to possess them.  But death erases the ability to want or respect anything. Whatever wishes I have before death, well they're gone, along with every other trait my consciousness exhibits.  So the logical argument for property no longer holds.This is one sore spot anarchocapitalists keep secret, knowing that their stance is flawed.  There's nothing that legitimizes inheritance, at least not in any logically proven way.  You say the contract is executed, but between whom?  How do you prove it legit?  To prove a contract is executed, like proof in the sciences, requires some ability to review and reproduce results.  Not just compare notes.  Since the writer of the will does not exist, you can only compare artifact with artifact.  You can never examine the mind of the dead owner, whose ability to own I am saying either does not exist, or at a minimum cannot be confirmed by the logic of reciprocation that makes property possible in the first place.Some of your points misrepresent what I say.  We are not adversaries, and I do not dispute the useful importance of inheritance.  I only mean to say it evades the notion of objective ethics.  Like good manners, it's a cultural choice and an agreement between surviving parties and nothing more.  The DRO idea may carry it out, but there's no ethical requirement for competing and disagreeing parties to do so.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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.

Why don't you mind your own fuckin business? 

The main argument in favor of property is that a thief wants to keep whatever they have stolen, so by keeping goods and not allowing their victim to keep goods, it's a performative contradiction.  It's "K and not K", so property cannot be denied.  This idea could be called reciprocation, because to be consistent you have to respect property rights in order to possess them.  But death erases the ability to want or respect anything. Whatever wishes I have before death, well they're gone, along with every other trait my consciousness exhibits.  So the logical argument for property no longer holds.

 

This is one sore spot anarchocapitalists keep secret, knowing that their stance is flawed.  There's nothing that legitimizes inheritance, at least not in any logically proven way.  You say the contract is executed, but between whom?  How do you prove it legit?  To prove a contract is executed, like proof in the sciences, requires some ability to review and reproduce results.  Not just compare notes.  Since the writer of the will does not exist, you can only compare artifact with artifact.  You can never examine the mind of the dead owner, whose ability to own I am saying either does not exist, or at a minimum cannot be confirmed by the logic of reciprocation that makes property possible in the first place.

 

Some of your points misrepresent what I say.  We are not adversaries, and I do not dispute the useful importance of inheritance.  I only mean to say it evades the notion of objective ethics.  Like good manners, it's a cultural choice and an agreement between surviving parties and nothing more.  The DRO idea may carry it out, but there's no ethical requirement for competing and disagreeing parties to do so.

That's not the main argument for property. 

[cab21]

individuals own the results of their labor, unless they have sold it.

a individual writes a contract saying where the individuals labor is to go to.

the contract is a logical legitimization of inheritance.

the will of a person is logical, it sets a time period of transfer of titles

the person signed the contract when the person was alive

in order to change the contract, it needs the persons signature

dead people don't give signatures, so the contract signed when the person was alive is the contract the estate must fulfill.

 

even with two live people that make a contract, they don't get to then decide to  follow the contract or not, that is breech of contract, one person dieing does not make it no longer a breech of contract.

[RestoringGuy]

individuals own the results of their labor, unless they have sold it.

I believe the individual is not present upon death.  In finding minerals or goods in a state of nature, I think you might agree contracts do not apply.  Once an item is non-property, a contract seems extremely fictional, a mental wish.  If we can apply contracts without living individuals to sustain them, our ancestors can apply a contract to the entire earth to establish statism.  They did improvements to the earth, making planet Earth a product of labor.  But I would think no, they must be alive and ready to account for whatever contributions, and explain to me why I should agree with their terms.

 

If a dead guy has a car, it is merely improved metal ore, glass, etc., and all the work and/or money investments needed to improve those raw materials (to make it a car) are not a result of labor of any presently sentient being, but artifacts of the past.  Sure the guy was sentient, in the past tense.  But I do not believe in the immortal soul.  I think if a contract can be said to be self-proving or self-sustaining, absent the author, then the Holy Bible should be read the same way.  The Bible is the word of God, etc., and it only needs to be judged on its own made up terms and by the standards of people who wrote it.  Like the Bible, a contract of the dead cannot be independently confirmed.  It's an artifact, and I don't think it's right to require all people who did not sign it to be ethically bound by it.  Certainly not in a way that allows force for being impolite and disrespectful of the dead and their contracts.

 

I know some people want inheritance to exist, but God not to exist.  It does not make sense to me, because it involves being really selective about choosing when the dead are valid individuals.  We use consciousness to distinguish many things.  Consider animal rights, the reality of governments, corporations, religion, matters of nature, pollution, etc., and we can say these things do not have a living consciousness speaking on their behalf  Those things, by most anarchocapitalist reckoning, do not ethically stand on their own.  They're made up.  They are subordinated to us on the basis that living people are the only things that are rational, the only things that can reason about ethics. A contract may describe how a dead person wants to allocate their property, but what does that prove without a rational author to stand in their own defense?  And if we omit the need for the author to defend their work and the need for independent confirmation, why cannot these other self-proving things (religion, animals, etc.) be classified as ethical agents?  As an atheist and anarchist, I speak for God and the animals!  At that point my foundation does not seem right.  As far as inescapable truth, you would be right to reject my claim that God speaks to us through the written word, just as I am right to reject inheritance.

[cab21]

a will has independent confirmation. there are witnesses to a will, a will is registered and held by living people. the living people have evidence, the wrote the will, and signed the will along side the now dead person, and the living people have copies of the will registered. the record of the will would be like any other record of property ownership, such as registration and ownership papers of a car or home or other property and assets. there would be plenty of live people there to confirm and verify the will.

 

people would likely register property in multiple peoples names or to a estate, and thus living people would be the owners of the property.

[RestoringGuy]

a will has independent confirmation. there are witnesses to a will, a will is registered and held by living people. the living people have evidence, the wrote the will, and signed the will along side the now dead person, and the living people have copies of the will registered. the record of the will would be like any other record of property ownership, such as registration and ownership papers of a car or home or other property and assets. there would be plenty of live people there to confirm and verify the will.

It does not seem that witnesses are independent confirmation, they are observing the same event.  If I confirm a chemistry experiment independently, I should not just witness the first experiment on video.

 

What do they confirm anyway, just that it was signed by somebody who no longer exists?  I am not understanding your point.  Is it that signature was made by somebody who no longer exists, or that the words match the intent of the author who no longer exists?  If it's the signature, the state has signatures.  Our representatives speak for us just as a dead person speaks through a will, and there are witnesses who confirm they signed.  I don't feel bound by them however.  What's the signature got to do with the rest of the text?  If it's the intent of the words that's being confirmed, God has intent according to biblical records, but of course I can't independently confirm their claims.  Some people insist and swear God's real, and has intent to guide us through life.  To accept it, should I have to accept such third-party confirmations, or should I require God to address me personally?

[cobra2411]

It does not seem that witnesses are independent confirmation, they are observing the same event.  If I confirm a chemistry experiment independently, I should not just witness the first experiment on video.

 

What do they confirm anyway, just that it was signed by somebody who no longer exists?  I am not understanding your point.  Is it that signature was made by somebody who no longer exists, or that the words match the intent of the author who no longer exists?  If it's the signature, the state has signatures.  Our representatives speak for us just as a dead person speaks through a will, and there are witnesses who confirm they signed.  I don't feel bound by them however.  What's the signature got to do with the rest of the text?  If it's the intent of the words that's being confirmed, God has intent according to biblical records, but of course I can't independently confirm their claims.  Some people insist and swear God's real, and has intent to guide us through life.  To accept it, should I have to accept such third-party confirmations, or should I require God to address me personally?

A will is a contract. A contract is a set of instructions that one or more people have agreed to carry out to their completion or until some unforeseen event prevents that. If I contract to walk to the end of a pier next year and before I do a storm knocks the pier down then I can not complete the contract through no fault of my own. Otherwise, because I have agreed I am morally obligated to complete that contract by walking to the end of the pier. If the other party is dead the contract can not be altered to list another pier; although an alternate pier could have been listed when the contract was created stating that if for any reason I can not walk to the end of pier A, then I am to walk to the end of pier B. A good contract IMO would also list "in the event you can not walk to the end of piers A or B then the contract is ended without further obligation". However, the end of the contract without obligation is implied when you reach a stalemate and can not alter or complete it.

 

Witnesses attest that the person creating the contract is in fact who he says he is. Usually there is an independent, unrelated person who is involved. To use you're example, you're not watching the replay of the experiment, you are there independently observing the experiment so later you can attest that the experiment actually happened. 

 

By "our representatives" are you referring to congress? That is a failed argument as they do not speak for us and they do not follow our written instructions. I fail to see how the unethical actions of the state makes contracts selectively enforceable. 

 

The signatures are a form of authentication. It says "these are my words, not the words of another". Since you have a right to property and you and only you can dispose of your property, it's important to know they are your words. Since you are not around to verify that is what you wrote, you have people witness your signature verifying those are in fact your words and intentions. Wills are contested all the time to verify them.

 

 

 

Some people insist and swear God's real, and has intent to guide us through life.  To accept it, should I have to accept such third-party confirmations, or should I require God to address me personally?

Hey, if you can come to me with a signature from god, witnessed by two independent, unbiased persons I would argue that there is a strong possibility there is someone called god. Seriously though, signatures are verified by a notary currently using at least one form of generally recognized ID - usually a state ID. In a stateless society there would exist documentation that would be hard to forge that would verify who you are and that you are associated with a DRO for example. There would also exist independent people who's sole purpose is to verify that the identifying information contained on the card matches what they see in person. Currently it's simply a picture but there's no reason with computers that pass-phrases and such couldn't be verified against a QR code or chip on the card to provide another level of security. Notaries found providing false information would be punished - fines and imprisonment today, lower DRO rating or outright ban from the DRO system in the future. 

 

Answer this simple question for me. If two people knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter into a contract and one of them dies, does that automatically absolve the other persons responsibilities under that contract? Yes or No. 

 

If you answer yes, then we don't have property rights which is false because we own ourselves and therefore do have property rights. If you answer no, then inheritance is valid as death does not end contracts which have already been created and put in place. 

[Magnus]

A will is not a contract. It is an act (effected through writing) of giving away property. It is a unilateral property transfer, and is operative at the moment of death.

 

Everyone has the right to give away his property during his lifetime. But since death can come upon us suddenly, by writing it down, one can prepare for the final act of giving, so the transfer of rights occurs upon death, rather than have to do it ahead of time.

 

That's why, in will contests, the main question is deciphering and implementing the testator's wishes. In some situations, though, those tasks might be impossible, so the common law developed a set of default rules for what to do when the instructions can't be followed, or if there are no instructions at all (in which case, they pretend the deceased wanted what most people would have wanted).

[PatrickC]

Restoring Guy, I do wonder what you are attempting restore sometimes. It's frankly rare that you ever make sense to me.. Could be me of course, but I'm kinda doubtful.

[cobra2411]

A will is not a contract. It is an act (effected through writing) of giving away property. It is a unilateral property transfer, and is operative at the moment of death.Everyone has the right to give away his property during his lifetime. But since death can come upon us suddenly, by writing it down, one can prepare for the final act of giving, so the transfer of rights occurs upon death, rather than have to do it ahead of time.That's why, in will contests, the main question is deciphering and implementing the testator's wishes. In some situations, though, those tasks might be impossible, so the common law developed a set of default rules for what to do when the instructions can't be followed, or if there are no instructions at all (in which case, they pretend the deceased wanted what most people would have wanted).

It has similarities. There is usually an executor and typically the executor is asked; that's a verbal contract. There's usually a provision for the executor to be paid a small amount for his service, so there's an exchange of value. And yes, there are common laws about disputes, lack of wills, etc. 

 

I simply wanted to make things as simple as I could to answer whether death nullifies all property and contractual rights and obligations. I believe we can make arrangements for what will become of our possessions after death and those arrangements are not nullified by our death. I have not seen any sufficient argument to the contrary - they all rely on twisting logic, straw man arguments and other logical fallacies.  

[dsayers]

I think it's accurate to say a will is not a contract in that contract is a mutual consent arrangement. If somebody willed to me a grand piano right now, I don't have any place for it. I might consent to receive it and store it someplace out of an expectation of selling it for more than I invest in handling it. But nobody can force me to suddenly take ownership of a grand piano.

 

This is even more true under a State, where you can get stolen from more than the object is worth if you receive it. Even if it's not worth more, some people might refuse just to keep the extra theft out of their lives.

[Magnus]

It has similarities. There is usually an executor and typically the executor is asked; that's a verbal contract. There's usually a provision for the executor to be paid a small amount for his service, so there's an exchange of value. And yes, there are common laws about disputes, lack of wills, etc. I simply wanted to make things as simple as I could to answer whether death nullifies all property and contractual rights and obligations. I believe we can make arrangements for what will become of our possessions after death and those arrangements are not nullified by our death. I have not seen any sufficient argument to the contrary - they all rely on twisting logic, straw man arguments and other logical fallacies.

The executor is the deceased's proxy. The transfer from the deceased to the recipient is not contractual, in the sense that it's not reciprocal. But contracts are based on property rights, because in a contract, it is rights in property that are traded. Property is the root of all ethics. Inheritance is just the transfer of property as the final legal act of one's life. Wills are a bit metaphorical, but they rest on solid ground.

[st434u]

Wills are a bit metaphorical, but they rest on solid ground.

 

A will is just a contact that is signed in advance by one of the parties, and upon meeting of certain criteria (in this case the first signer's death), the second party(or parties) will be contacted by someone designated by the first party (usually the lawyer of the deceased). Then the second party will be presented with the opportunity to either agree to the contract and sign it, or refuse.

[Magnus]

A will is just a contact that is signed in advance by one of the parties, and upon meeting of certain criteria (in this case the first signer's death), the second party(or parties) will be contacted by someone designated by the first party (usually the lawyer of the deceased). Then the second party will be presented with the opportunity to either agree to the contract and sign it, or refuse.

No, I'm sorry to be disagreeable, but a gift made in a will is not a matter of contract. The gift can be refused (in which case the gift fails, it reverts to the estate, and is disposed of according to a set of other rules), but a contract's essence is defined by a different set of criteria entirely -- a mutual, reciprocal promise to perform some act in the future, in exchange for some other act (or promise to act). A will is just a gift -- a transfer of property from A to B. It does not include reciprocity or a promise to perform future acts, as contracts do.

[cobra2411]

Well I'm no expert on wills, so I think in terms of contracts. It doesn't matter as I believe it's clear that you have the right to dispose of your property as your last worldly act.

[st434u]

No, I'm sorry to be disagreeable, but a gift made in a will is not a matter of contract. The gift can be refused (in which case the gift fails, it reverts to the estate, and is disposed of according to a set of other rules), but a contract's essence is defined by a different set of criteria entirely -- a mutual, reciprocal promise to perform some act in the future, in exchange for some other act (or promise to act).A will is just a gift -- a transfer of property from A to B. It does not include reciprocity or a promise to perform future acts, as contracts do.

 

No, the first party can specify terms that the second party must agree to in order for the property to be transferred over.

[Magnus]

No, the first party can specify terms that the second party must agree to in order for the property to be transferred over.

Acquiescence (or rejection) to a unilateral gift is not the same as a pair of mutual promises to trade reciprocal future performances. A contract is more complex than a gift of property. It is a voluntary obligation to behave in a particular way in the future, in exchange for a corresponding transfer or promise from the other party. A gift is simpler. It occurs in real time, rather than bind future action, and it is not reciprocal. A contract is a promise to (a) trade property (b) in the future. A gift (including those in wills) is (a) a unilateral transfer of property (b) in the here and now.

[RestoringGuy]

Inheritance still does not work, as contract or not.  Suppose you find an eighty-thousand-year-old chiseled stone from an extinct race of hominids that allocates earth's resources in some definable way that literally pertains to whatever is still around (our species).  Did this stone document self-execute before your species did?  Maybe defenders of inheritance are saying eight-second-old wills get preference over the wills of various conquered ancestors.I use this thought experiment.  If you write a mathematics proof, it can be verified mechanically.  A theorem verifier, such as Isabelle, Mizar or other symbolic computation software can process mathematics proofs step-by-step and indicate they are valid.  Some can even find new proofs.  Even if humanity were about to become extinct, a computer could remain behind, still validating proofs on geothermal power.  That computer should not behave differently with regard to mathematical truth than if we were still around with our mighty free will to guide it.  By the same token, chemistry and physics and all of science (in principle) could be verified by automated experiments, filling test tubes, etc., much as a coffee machine might grind and brew coffee. Of all our written truths, in 1 billion years we would not expect the next sentient species to refute our mathematical or scientific truths after they dig them up from the ground, unless of course we genuinely made an error to begin with.  The point being that consciousness does not influence reality except through the act of living and interacting with it.  Our documents are not alive, they either convey testable truth or else they are dead fictional artifacts.But with this inheritance business, the life and interaction of the author are gone.  For the document to sustain itself as "truth", like math and science it should have real meaning to the reader.  As a lifeless artifact, a will might prove something, much as dinosaur bones or stone tablets prove something.  To me, a will does not prove the principles of property exist after death, or even that property can transfer in some automated fashion like the spirit soaring to heaven.  Until somebody reads and chooses to accept the will, finding reason to accept what it says by logical means, how is it different than the Bible?

[Magnus]

A will does not "prove the principles of property." It is merely a recording that reflects a person's desire. That's all that "will" means: wish, intent, desire, decision, etc.

 

If I sell you my house, I execute a deed to prove the transfer. "Deed" just means "act." As in, the document that memorializes my act of divesting myself of ownership and transferring it to you. No one here at FDR questions a seller's right to do that, right?

 

The seller could, if he wanted, also execute a deed that says "I give ownership of my house to John as of December 31, 2016." Again, that's not a contract. It's a transfer of property that is effected and completed in the future.

 

If you can give away property in the present moment, then you can give it away at a point in the future. It's your property; you can do what you want with it.

 

A will is the same type of thing -- a deed to all your property, giving it away, The only difference between a will and an ordinary deed (one that gives away property in its entirety at the moment it's made) is that a will is, by necessity, conditional. It goes into effect at the moment of death.

 

If you have the right to give away your property while you're on your deathbed, as it were, why is it wrongful or invalid to plan your deathbed gifts ahead of time? When you're still healthy and conscious? After all, death might occur in a way that doesn't give you time to make your property wishes known.

 

A will is not a dead artifact. It's an act of property transfer that was made while someone is alive, with the idea that the transfers are completed as he is dying.

 

If you respect property rights, I don't see why you'd reject property being transferred via a will.