4 ms·

I don't see a family as being a morally privileged group in the way you seem to. For example, if A threatens B with violence should B employ C, I believe that'

I don't see a family as being a morally privileged group in the way you seem to. For example, if A threatens B with violence should B employ C, I believe that's wrong. I don't believe it becomes morally acceptable if A and B are members of the same family, or the same ethnic or national group. I believe parents owe a certain individual obligation to their children (due to the fact that they chose to birth them), but little else.

blfr 10y ago
You just restated the same thing without addressing the core similiarity. If you consider the accident of birth in a certain country unfair. That is, Sven being born in Sweden and Sandeep in India which should be rectified by allowing Sandeep to move to Sweden (or Finland, or wherever), do you consider other instances of inheritance unfair? For example, if Sven stands to inherit an apartment in Stockholm and a nice cabin in the woods, while Lucas' parents were renters who won't leave him much, should Sven's parents' estate be taxed at 100% to rectify this unfairness (or 50% to pass it to Lucas)? If not, why not? What is the principled objection? It seems to me that both lines of arguments for inheritance (whether better capital allocation and stewardship, or simple blood ties) work just as well for material goods as they do for citizenship. And property is guaranteed by the threat of violence (often from the same actors) just like borders are.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I restated my principle in terms of family because I don't think you disagree with my principle there. Do you think my brother should threaten me with violence if I employ someone other than his son? I have no problem with individuals disposing of their property as they see fit. Just as Sven might like to pass his house to Lucas, I might like to rent my house to Jose the Mexican. And I object to laws that would prevent both of these things. I guess another disagreement we have is that I don't see citizenship as property.

blfr 10y ago

You just restated the same thing without addressing the core similiarity. If you consider the accident of birth in a certain country unfair. That is, Sven being born in Sweden and Sandeep in India which should be rectified by allowing Sandeep to move to Sweden (or Finland, or wherever), do you consider other instances of inheritance unfair? For example, if Sven stands to inherit an apartment in Stockholm and a nice cabin in the woods, while Lucas' parents were renters who won't leave him much, should Sven's parents' estate be taxed at 100% to rectify this unfairness (or 50% to pass it to Lucas)? If not, why not? What is the principled objection? It seems to me that both lines of arguments for inheritance (whether better capital allocation and stewardship, or simple blood ties) work just as well for material goods as they do for citizenship. And property is guaranteed by the threat of violence (often from the same actors) just like borders are.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I restated my principle in terms of family because I don't think you disagree with my principle there. Do you think my brother should threaten me with violence if I employ someone other than his son? I have no problem with individuals disposing of their property as they see fit. Just as Sven might like to pass his house to Lucas, I might like to rent my house to Jose the Mexican. And I object to laws that would prevent both of these things. I guess another disagreement we have is that I don't see citizenship as property.