[CJefferson]

No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion), someone shouldn't get to inherit millions of dollars just because their grandfather committed some terrible crime -- inheritance should not be a right, when the original money was acquired illegally.

[darkcha0s]

Whether that punishment is jail time or a fine is secondary. The primary question is, should the decedents be punished for a crime they did not commit?

Moreover, where do you draw the line? Should all the decedents of german families who got their wealth off the back of slave labor by jews also be forced to forfeit their wealth? What about the decedents of families of plantation owners? How do you go about handling that with the institutions provided? What would they be charged with?

[CJefferson]

Honestly, I'd prefer we, as a society, did tend more in this direction. Where I live (Scotland), most of the country is owned by a small number of families, who inherited it themselves. I'd be happy with a model where this land was, possibly over generations, taken away and redisturbed in some way.

[jacobush]

In the US there are plenty of "US vs $1000" cases already.

[vladTheInhaler]

Though I generally agree with the sentiment that we should do more to claw back ill-gotten gains, civil asset forfeiture is a terrible precedent and should be eliminated, not expanded. The legal theory is that your money (and property) doesn't have the right to due process, since it's not a person. So basically you have to prove that it wasn't involved in a crime. Which just leads to police officers stealing from poor people who haven't been convicted of a crime.

[jacobush]

Exactly.

[macspoofing]

>No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion)

Every law, no matter how small and well-meaning, has implicit threat of prison behind it. You can't be so naïve as to believe that this enforcement action won't result in prison for some, destroyed lives for others, and because laws and enforcement are man-made, there's also a guarantee that your dragnet will punish some innocents, and let some guilty go (maybe because they can afford great lawyers and/or bribes). And of course, because this would be a very controversial measure, it would be highly politicized.

[pessimizer]

> Every law, no matter how small and well-meaning, has implicit threat of prison behind it.

If someone doesn't comply with the court, but that would be a crime committed by the child, not the parent.

[eesmith]

Why do people keep making this claim?

There are plenty of laws which don't have an implicit threat of prison behind it.

Here's one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/1 . Quoting Wikipedia: "This is a U.S. federal law, but only suggests voluntary customs for handling of the American flag and was never intended to be enforceable. The code uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout and does not prescribe any penalties for failure to follow the guidelines." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code

[macspoofing]

You're really stretching.

[eesmith]

I honestly don't know why I'm so downvoted.

There are laws naming post offices and other objects. There are law recognizing people and bestowing honors on them. There are laws which cancel previous laws.

There are plenty of laws which have no threat of punishment.

But I'll set that objection aside.

Let's go back to CJefferson's comment, to be more concrete. "inheritance should not be a right, when the original money was acquired illegally."

Money (at least as CJefferson refers to) exists because of laws, and the way we think of money exists because of laws. Inheritance is a legal concept, enforced by laws. So the right to inherit millions of dollars by your definition exists because of the implicit threat of prison.

Thus, changing the law as CJefferson describes doesn't necessarily add a new threat of violence - it could change the balance of the existing threat of violence, or even reduce it.

Thus, an argument against changing the law simply because laws carry a threat of punishment is really an argument to maintain the status quo for the existing threats of violence. It is not a strong argument against changing the law, which is what I think you meant it as.