>Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction. No

>Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction. No, passing resources from generation to generation is not what leads to "mass destruction", etc. Familial/generational resources have been the sustenance of almost all free humans since time immemorial. They would live on tribal [read: familial] lands for their entire existence, cooperatively sharing the wealth to ensure that the needs of family members were supplied. We're still dependent on generational wealth for the first couple decades of our lives at a minimum, and there's no reason to cut it off there except a) jealousy that some people are able to do so; and b) a desire to lessen the interdependent bonds between sympathetic family members and strengthen the dependency on the cold, hard creditors, standing at the ready to collect interest and increase the cost of all durable goods by 1.5x-3x. The fact that some things, like thrones and other official positions, may not be good fits for straight inheritance models doesn't mean that all inheritance is evil or that parents shouldn't be allowed to provide a resource pool that will persist after their deaths. I hope that I can leave an estate that provides for the housing and basic needs of my children and grandchildren and I fully intend on passing it down to them. This has nothing to do with "aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction", and the claim that it does is plain class hostility.