[thisisbad]

  There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions.

What difference? Inheritance = payment for providing happiness and support in life. The amount can be whatever you want - millions, billions or nothing at all.

If someone has a business worth millions and decides to leave it to his wife or children, then that would be a financial compensation for making his life better. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money they've made.

  It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving.

Who is objecting to other people receiving money from someone who wants to give it to them voluntarily? It's crazy what envy does to people.

Beautiful people receive more positive attention and get compliments all the time. Should they mutilate themselves, so they don't receive attention anymore?

  Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages.

So what? Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people? There are ugly people, which doesn't mean beautiful people should mutilate themselves and make previously ugly people look better in comparison.

[pjc50]

There's no need to make the Harrison Bergeron argument. It all comes down to:

> Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people?

Well, this is a whole question of what a "society" is and the nature of mutual obligation towards both other members of our society and other humans in general. If one day I should find you collapsed in the street, remind me that we don't have any obligations towards each other.

[thisisbad]

  There's no need to make the Harrison Bergeron argument

If there is no need, then why are you writing about inheritance (paying someone who made you happy) in a negative way? Why are you focusing on money, but not on beauty, fame, intelligence etc. ?

  It all comes down to: > Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people?

It doesn't.

It also comes down to:

> Why would beautiful people have an obligation to help ugly people?

Nobody is making the argument that beautiful people should mutilate themselves to make ugly people look better in comparison, right? But, why not? Beauty, wealth, fame, intelligence etc. are all examples of privilege. So, why focus on money? Why does it all come down to money?

  Well, this is a whole question of what a "society" is and the nature of mutual obligation towards both other members of our society and other humans in general.

What is your answer to that and why should I accept it? It seems that society is different things to different people. If you're envious and bitter, then society is about helping losers. If you're healthy and wealthy, then society is about stability.

  If one day I should find you collapsed in the street, remind me that we don't have any obligations towards each other.

Of course we don't. You might help someone because it makes you feel good or your social status will increase (which in turn makes you feel good). Not because of some vague, abstract concept like obligation/duty that you have towards members of homo sapiens species.

[pjc50]

People need money to live, not any of the other things.

[thisisbad]

That's false, since money is a recent invention. It's like saying "Cats need Whiskas to live".

Even if it were true, so what? If someone needs money to live, how does that imply that money should be taken from those who have it and be given to those who don't?

You might need positive attention to feel good about yourself (since you're ugly). Does that mean that the attention beautiful people receive should be directed towards ugly people (by mutilating beautiful people)?

[lastyearman]

Because those who have it did not create it in a vacuum. And after all, there is nothing but a mutual agreement that those who do not have won't take it from those who have, and that agreement includes whatever welfare said society has.