4 ms·

Land is special because it has always existed and (practically) you can't make more of it. There are reasons to make it private, but it's quite different from,

Land is special because it has always existed and (practically) you can't make more of it. There are reasons to make it private, but it's quite different from, say, a sculpture. Clay is nearly worthless, so if an artist turns it into a valuable sculpture, that value was created. Obviously, there's a spectrum here. Even land typically requires an investment to make it useful for anything. Food is largely created; especially something like sausages or cheese. So the tale of the miner above doesn't really apply. It may not even apply well in that case, if the pheasants were feeding on crops cultivated by the landowner.

arethuza 11y ago
[NB I voted you up - not clear why you are being voted down] I was really replying to the excellent comment by steego about property rights being a "sacrosanct moral imperative" - I sort of think that if you do believe that then you surely have to agree with those who argue that "taxes are theft" - not that I think this but at least they have a degree of logical consistency on their side.
mcv 11y ago
The real difference is in inheritance. Unlimited inheritance over many generations creates a concentration of wealth and an aristocratic class that never earned the wealth they own. Ownership of something you worked to create is different from ownership of something due to luck of being born in the right crib.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  Is that kind of "old money" an increasing or decreasing phenomenon? I don't have the numbers, but it seems like a lot of the rich people that come to mind made most of their money during their lifetime. Also, wealth naturally dissipates pretty quickly over generations. One reason is simple fan out. Another reason is that the children are likely to be less frugal, and there's s high chance that some descendants are downright reckless financially.
  - mcv 11y ago
    Money doesn't have to be all that old. Trump, for example, is only second generation money. But still he inherited a couple of hundred million, and wouldn't be where he is now without his rich dad. How long this wealth lingers van vary a lot. If it gets divided among multiple children, it dillutes pretty quickly, but those children are still far richer than average children. You need either many generations of dillution or some really terrible mismanagement to restore this aristocracy back to regular people. And all those generations in between do wield power and wealth they never earned. Of course an economic revolution like the internet is giving us, creates a lot of new millionaires and billionaires, and if they let their children inherit their entire wealth, that would create a fresh new aristocracy. Though I'm glad to see that a lot of new billionaires put their money to more philantropic uses. Not all of them, though.

arethuza 11y ago

[NB I voted you up - not clear why you are being voted down] I was really replying to the excellent comment by steego about property rights being a "sacrosanct moral imperative" - I sort of think that if you do believe that then you surely have to agree with those who argue that "taxes are theft" - not that I think this but at least they have a degree of logical consistency on their side.

mcv 11y ago

The real difference is in inheritance. Unlimited inheritance over many generations creates a concentration of wealth and an aristocratic class that never earned the wealth they own. Ownership of something you worked to create is different from ownership of something due to luck of being born in the right crib.

jeffdavis 11y ago
Is that kind of "old money" an increasing or decreasing phenomenon? I don't have the numbers, but it seems like a lot of the rich people that come to mind made most of their money during their lifetime. Also, wealth naturally dissipates pretty quickly over generations. One reason is simple fan out. Another reason is that the children are likely to be less frugal, and there's s high chance that some descendants are downright reckless financially.
- mcv 11y ago
  Money doesn't have to be all that old. Trump, for example, is only second generation money. But still he inherited a couple of hundred million, and wouldn't be where he is now without his rich dad. How long this wealth lingers van vary a lot. If it gets divided among multiple children, it dillutes pretty quickly, but those children are still far richer than average children. You need either many generations of dillution or some really terrible mismanagement to restore this aristocracy back to regular people. And all those generations in between do wield power and wealth they never earned. Of course an economic revolution like the internet is giving us, creates a lot of new millionaires and billionaires, and if they let their children inherit their entire wealth, that would create a fresh new aristocracy. Though I'm glad to see that a lot of new billionaires put their money to more philantropic uses. Not all of them, though.