[altmanaltman]

What do you mean that's what capitalism is about? It's about capital. It doesn't asks where you get that capital - if you have $100,000 that you inherited vrs $100,000 you earned, JPM will still see it as just $100,000. So yes, by capitalism, if your parents did a lot of hard work and saved the capital and gave it to you, you have it. Where does it make a moral judgement that it's wrong to have inheritance or right to earn it by the bootstraps?

And no, I mean every trade secret of the company should become public and anyone should be able to create its products and brands. Basically, do to them what you propose to do to writers and artists - why must their families benefit from their work?

[constantius]

To your second point: a company (or any kind of organisation) is continuous work. It's a very obvious retort to your analogy. It would be akin to the author writing a book in a series every year for twenty years, then giving their rights to their child who keeps writing books every year, and every book only has 20 years of copyright. Seems fair to me.

To your first point: inheritance has a concentrating effect on wealth. Concentration of wealth is not a good thing, as it breeds inequality by definition.

If your grandparents gave you a house for free, and you used that enormous advantage to pur your money elsewhere and then own 2, 3 houses, and your child then gets 10, that's 10 houses that people could own themselves, instead of paying the highest rent that your child can get away with.

If you have any experience of poverty, you should understand how viscerally unfair the existence of 'rich kids' seem, and how damaging it is to society.

[altmanaltman]

> To your second point: a company (or any kind of organisation) is continuous work. It's a very obvious retort to your analogy. It would be akin to the author writing a book in a series every year for twenty years, then giving their rights to their child who keeps writing books every year, and every book only has 20 years of copyright. Seems fair to me.

I don't understand how that is fair though? Why should the author give away their rights without any compensation to the public is my point. Continous work is not really relevant to this, otherwise you would have concede that any previous work done by the company in 20 years including their trademarks, logos, ideas should be free for the public to use? Otherwise it is clearly unfair that we treat writers with one set of law regarding property but have another set of laws for every other business?

And yes, capitalism is not good but my point is that it supports inheritance as a system. It doesn't care where you got the money. Is it fair? Of course not. The root of this is based on exploitation and it is what the world has accepted as the common form of economy.

And yes, I have experienced poverty but I don't think its viscerally unfair that "rich kids" exist. Why is it unfair in an objective term? Because they got handed things for free? Or because they have it better than you? In either case, it would be very easy to find examples of people who have it 10 times worse than you and who think your existence is unfair. But is it really?

> If your grandparents gave you a house for free, and you used that enormous advantage to pur your money elsewhere and then own 2, 3 houses, and your child then gets 10, that's 10 houses that people could own themselves, instead of paying the highest rent that your child can get away with.

Or you could also lose all your money by being stupid with it and not having any skills. If you have the skill to build upon the foundation, why is it luck? Why are we assuming just because your grandparents gave you a house for free, you'll automatically continue to build upon it and not lose it (which happens a lot more often than you would think). Should that skill not be respected? Who are you to determine what is fair and what is not.