[majormajor]

> Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity.

What if they just inherited it?

How confident are we that everyone who has a lot of monetary power today got to that place originally through productive economic activity vs. illegitimate/criminal activity, or unproductive economic activity, or inheritance, or just being the first to colonise (or often just plain steal) some land, or some other less savory source?

[iamnotlarry]

We're not talking about all rich people. We're talking about Jeff Bezos. How did Jeff become the second wealthiest human on the planet?

Well, his mother's family had some wealth. But his mother was a single teenage mom until she married his step-father. His step-father immigrated alone from Cuba at the age of 15. Later, he worked his way through a degree at the University of Albuquerque.

So, I'm not sure how much of a silver spoon he had.

[mjfl]

In an ideal society, we identify theft/criminal activity and get the money back. That's part of what we have government for right? Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

[baursak]

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

Like Queen of England's inheritance, for example?

Or anybody inheriting land on American soil?

Totally no violence involved in initially obtaining those assets?

[branchless]

Love this cartoon:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png

[mjfl]

Crimes aren't inherited.

[baursak]

So if I kill you and take your house, and somehow escape justice before dying myself and passing said house to my son, your son forfeits any claim to the house? Correct?

[mjfl]

I think the general consensus is that if you can identify a specific property that has been stolen from you in an estate, you can reclaim it (from the estate). But claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly, or general claims from one group to another, like a common English person against the Queen, a colored person against a random white man, or a Palestinian against an Israelite, those are not valid.

[8note]

General consensus of people who've benefitted from said stealing*

In each of the cases you listed, the person who would've had claims against them has power over the plaintiff

[baursak]

So if I unknowingly buy a stolen bike off Craigslist, I get to keep it? If the owner later identifies it with proof and requests me to return it, do I get to say "sorry, no" to him?

[visarga]

> claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly ... are not valid

I am not sure about that. A stolen good cannot be legally buyed from the thiefs.

[doug1001]

no. (with a lot of statutory exceptions, i'm quite sure) i believe the applicable common law rule is this:

if there's a (prior) theft in the chain of title, then you do not have good title.

hence the market for title insurance and the market for title searches.

[mhermher]

You don't even have to die in this scenario. Just give the loot to a friend. He inherits the loot but not the crime. Maybe he'll return the favor, or just immediately give it back to you.

[metaphorm]

that's a legal convention that we agree with in America today, kinda, mostly. it has not always been the prevailing legal convention in society.

[owyn]

Inequality sure is.

[dragonwriter]

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

I see a problem with the dead ruling over the living. Your will ends when you do with no extension.

That's not to say there might not be legitimate reasons to allow some inheritance, but extending the will of the dead, economically productive in life or not, is not among them.

[mjfl]

Isn't that why wills are written while people are still alive, and executed as they die? Isn't that why it's called the last will? Not "extending the will of the dead" isn't any kind of legal principle anyways. It's absurd. We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died, come on.

[dragonwriter]

> We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died

Sure, for one reason for convenience. But Jefferson, it must be noted, wanted something similar for every law and Constitution (time based, because the alternative is impractical), specifically because the law should represent the will of the people living under it, not the dead hand of the past generation.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.h...

[iamnotlarry]

Good luck with that.

The daughter of a wealthy estate might receive the very best in private education, music lessons, etc. She might take her allowance and start a successful business. She might just have a successful business because of all her parents' social connections.

Then dad dies. How do you propose to nullify all the advantages she still enjoys because of her father's wealth?

Can you take away the child's business that was started with a few million dollars from dad? No? But you can take away the million dollars still sitting in the bank?

How about the farm? the house? the boat? Can those not be inherited?

If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

EDIT: better English

[dragonwriter]

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death.

I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly in GP.

OTOH, I'm also not a big fan of capitalism as a system, am glad that it has generally been displaced by the modern mixed economy since being described by its critics, and think that the influence it has on the general shape of modern economies needs to be further curtailed, so I'm not particularly worried that limiting inheritance might further undermine the influence of capitalism; that's a benefit, not a cost.

[terryf]

So where's the line?

I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature.

What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, except the education my single mother gave me) to get an edge in life.

You want to take that option away from me? Sorry, not gonna work.

[metaphorm]

> I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have.

why do you want to have more than someone else? that implies that you derive pleasure from the deprivation of others, which is sadistic.

I think you should work so that you can have the things that you want for yourself, not so you can have more than someone else.

[pikzen]

No, I only want to take 75% of that option from you if it didn't return into the economy during your lifetime.

[averagewall]

People care about what's going to happen after they die. You can see this from any global warming activist. They're not concerned about their own live but about future generations. Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

[dragonwriter]

> Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that once they're dead, what they cared about when they were alive matters, if at all, because and to the extent people still living care about it, and that there is no inherent right that the dead have to have their will dictate actions or rights of the living once they have died.

[metaphorm]

that's not the same type of thing as inheritance of material property and money. the inhabitability of the earth is an existential priority. what we do with leftover bank account balances when someone dies is not.

[metaphorm]

you're arguing against a strawman, the post you're replying to was discussing the posthumous will specifically.

[visarga]

> In an ideal society,

There has never existed an "ideal society". Power always corrupts.