> Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing. Can't people give their wealth to whomever

> Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing. Can't people give their wealth to whomever they want (while they are alive or dead)? In a system such as yours (where the state comes and takes all property like a vulture after someone dies) it means that every old person should spend all his money before he dies. He should also stop working (as many old people (at least in my country) spend their lives working for an inheritance for their children). I guess such a thing such as working to provide for your children and grandchildren is wrong in your books. Here is another example in my country: many farmers have children and teach their children farming. This is the only skill that some of them can transfer. The children works on his father's farm. If there are two sons the father will try and buy extra land. The children inherit and divide up the farm after the father’s death. You thus get people living generations on the same farm. In your ideal communist system, the child will lose his home, his father and his job (through the sin of inheritance). > It's possible life could have been better for everyone if not for inheritance. If all wealth is divided up after inheritance, the best (evolutionary speaking) strategy would be to have as many children as possible. That way, your offspring can have a larger share of someone else’s inheritance. The idea of the far left, of trying to steal someone’s property after he dies is pretty reprehensible for me. What is worse is their motivation for it. The idea that an individual’s rights (and property) are subservient to the majority. What you are basically saying is that if something is good for the majority, the minority or individual does not have rights.