[extropy-chat] Inheritance

[The Avantguardian]

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> Uh huh.  And your proposal re inheritance meets this
> criteria?  No?   
> Then why should yours be enforced above people's
> free choice?

Well considering that kings and dictators are people
too, why should democracy be enforced above their free
will to power? This is not mine, it is simply the
extension of the Rennaissance Enlightenment followed
to it's logical conclusion. If hereditary secular
power is wrong, then inheritance caps should exist. 

> By what ironclad rationality do you reach the
> conlclusion that no one  
> should inherit more than $1 million or that a rich
> person should  
> leave any heir more than that?  I missed your
> derivation of that result.

It was a figure of convenience and I said a home and a
million dollars. The million dollars was just used
because there is a currently held perception that a
million dollars is some kind of threshold of wealth.
People remember earning their first million better
than earning the millions that come after. But the
actual limit ought to be set as a percentage of the
national GDP or something. The point is simply to
allow the capitalist system in this country to become
FAIRER in a game-theoretical sense. Would you want to
play basketball against me if I started with 30 points
and you started with 0? What more is a hereditary
monarch then a guy who starts out with enough points
to win the game before it starts?  

> Where did the caps come from though?  You just
> thought them up with  
> little justification,

>From a enlightenment-capitalist-freemarket disdain of
heriditary power. A self-made millionaire is an idol,
"old money" is a tyrant.

> Trust funds are used for a variety of purposes many
> of which are  
> quite benign.  Before you condemn something you may
> want to look into  
> it a bit.

You mistake me, I am not condemning trust funds, I am
just not certain how they could made less prone to
abuse.

> Resentment clearly at work!  Excess???  How much
> "excess" does it  
> take to fund research that your society would
> otherwise not fund that  
> is critical to our dreams?

Well that brings up an interesting question of who
make better philanthropists? Noveau riche or old
money? Who are liable to be more abusive with their
money?

> What is excessive about
> someone having  
> so much of value to give that they accumulated more
> than most in  
> their live and what is wrong with them making their
> own decisions  
> about where their assets go on their demise without
> bothering to  
> consider your opinions on the matter?

Well excuse me for caring that I see a disparity in
the system and want to correct it. Why do you feel  so
threatened but what I am suggesting any way? It's not
like I have any say in what the country does. I am not
a senator, representative, or even vice-chair of a
minority party. I don't even really identify with ANY
political party.  I am just stating my opinion without
any expectation that anybody cares let alone would
adopt it as their own view. So yes in actuality I
fully expect people to decide what to do with their
assets without considering my opinions on the matter.

> Or are you just
> a busybody know- 
> it-all who believes the wold will go to hell if
> everyone is not  
> forced to do things as you see fit?

I am not a know-it-all I am a try-it-all and there is
a subtle but distict difference. And yeah that's why I
slave away in a lab for near minimum wage, so I force
my will upon others.


 


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com