[ExI] libertarians and inheritance

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 08/05/2009 18.06, Damien Broderick ha scritto:
> At 04:38 PM 5/8/2009 +0200, Mirco wrote:

> Yes, yes, yes, all this is self-evident. It has nothing to do with the
> point I raised, which is that if giving tax-sourced money to the lazy
> poor is held to be wrong *in part because* it corrodes the moral
> character of the recipients (among other reasons why it's wicked and
> damaging), then giving money to the children of the rich might do just
> the same damage, and should be prevented *if only for their own sake*.

The problem is two faced:

Inheritances are freely given to heirs as the parent is free to squander 
his/her wealth before passing it. Or it is free to have not children.
Entitlements are not freely given, because the money needed to fund them 
is extorted from the (unwilling) taxpayers.

The right to inheritance is the right to inherit because others 
unrelated people have not the right to take the inheritance for 
themselves. The right to inherit is, mainly, a right to leave our wealth 
to someone after we die. The inheriting people have not the right to 
kill us to collect before or to force us to work more so they will be 
able to collect more.
Entitlements funded with taxes give the entitled people an unjust claim 
that they can collect from taxed people when thy want collect what they 
want collect, as the taxed people have no right to complain.

The collecting people receiving a damage is not a problem, as they are 
free to refuse the unjust help offered and so refusing to take the 
damage. The real problem is the damage imparted to the taxed people, 
that will find themselves forced to pay and will choose to work less or 
will choose to use welfare.


> Pragmatic questions of who or what could prevent this dreadful damage to
> heirs (the government? Robin Hood? religious obligations? customs of
> potlatch? etc) is beside the point.

Pragmatic answer is "their business, not mine".
The parents that spoil their children are doing a disservice to 
themselves and their children. Spoiled children and their money will 
part ways early and will go to unspoiled children.

> The question is: does unearned income always *corrupt*?

Always is a big word.
Often it is so. Sometimes it is not.
Often depend on how it is given, how much and on what terms.

> Or does it only
> corrupt those worthless lazy stupid-but-cunning millions sucking on
> welfare's tit? (Or does it corrupt everyone alike, except that the heirs
> of billionaires are few in number, as I think Rafal noted, so their ruin
> is negligible compared to the 51% who allegedly vote themselves bread
> and circus and drive every democracy into squalor?)

What the heirs receive is given with particular terms, where the sucking 
multitudes are given under different terms.

> This line of thought might lead to further questions: if nanotopia
> arrives, with all of us getting food, shelter, education, communication
> and transport for free, must we face a future of hopeless degradation
> because these benefits are *unearned*? Or is that okay, because in this
> case the goodies aren't being taken from your pocket and "spread around"
> to the welfare queens--and besides, you don't have a taxable job anyway
> because the AIs took it?

If they produce their stuff with the nanofactories, this is a job. So 
what they receive is not unearned. Easy earning, maybe. Unearned not.
If they want someone else use the nanofactories to produce stuff for 
them, they could go to hell or have people producing stuff with them 
(Soylent Green anyone?)

Mirco