5 ms·

> Since you didn't contribute anything for this house, why should it go to you? That's the wrong way to look at it. The former (deceased) owner of the house di

> Since you didn't contribute anything for this house, why should it go to you? That's the wrong way to look at it. The former (deceased) owner of the house did contribute to it. It belonged to her and she had every right to dispose of it as she wished. That includes giving it away to someone else of her choosing upon her death. It's not the recipient's property rights that are being infringed upon here, but rather the donor's. The only thing "unfair" about this situation is that the effort of earning and deferring consumption and investing which the deceased put into acquiring the property is being stolen by uninvolved parties who contributed nothing toward it for their own enrichment contrary to the explicit wishes of the owner, and not left to the beneficiary the owner intended.

didibus 6y ago
> It belonged to her and she had every right to dispose of it as she wished That's a moral argument, but the issue with moral arguments is they can be made in every direction just as easily. For example, Thomas Jefferson said: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." And Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." Morally speaking, the founding fathers were against inheritance and the right of one person to be binding over future generations after their death. - https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you... Morally I agree with this, as I can't really see the justification for it. But as I said before, that's the issue with moralist arguments, they can be made both ways. So I'm more interested in practical aspects, maybe inheritance is actually responsible for greater wealth inequality, free market inneficiencies, political instability, and other downsides, but maybe it has upsides as well, though more and more I'm starting to see it as a net negative personally. Haslett argues the practical angle pretty well, summarized here: http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html I recommend reading it, it's a short read.
- nybble41 6y ago
  Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestricted use of it ("to bind it up from posterity", not to decide which particular posterity inherits it). I would generally agree that someone currently living must always hold the property rights—the dead cannot own property, so if the rights did not transfer then the property would be abandoned and free for anyone to claim via homesteading. That, however, is a separate matter from transferring rights to a designated benefactor at the time of death via an explicit prior arrangement such as a will. As for Smith, here we'll just have to disagree. I find it beyond bizarre that anyone would claim that a person has the right to dispose of their property as they wish at any point before death, but not at the moment they die. That distinction is nothing but the most trivial technicality.
  - didibus 6y ago
    > Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestricted use of it Did you read the article I linked? Cause that doesn't seem to be the case. He repealed the laws of primogeniture and entail, and he himself quoted Smith, showing that he was in agreement with Smith. And confirmed here as well: > Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth "a danger to the happiness of mankind." From https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-america...
    - nybble41 6y ago
      Primogeniture is again a different matter—that is the idea that the estate, or at least a certain portion of it, must be inherited by the firstborn heir, not a beneficiary chosen by the owner. I would 100% agree with repealing primogeniture laws. Entail, "an interest in land bound up inalienably in the grantee and then forever to his direct descendants"[0], is a reference to the covenant or trust concept I mentioned earlier. Transferring the rights upon death is one thing; making it so that the recipient is subject to restrictions imposed by the deceased donor and unable to dispose of the property as they wish is another. My own position is that for any action to be considered off-limits (i.e., sufficient justification for any punishment or reciprocation involving force) there must be some living person whose rights would be infringed by the action; deceased former owners lack standing in the matter. The article that you linked was behind a paywall, but I read as much of the intro as I was able. Jefferson himself was mostly anti-property in general, as your quote about redistributing all property every 50 years shows, but that was a fringe position among the founders. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail

didibus 6y ago

> It belonged to her and she had every right to dispose of it as she wished That's a moral argument, but the issue with moral arguments is they can be made in every direction just as easily. For example, Thomas Jefferson said: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." And Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." Morally speaking, the founding fathers were against inheritance and the right of one person to be binding over future generations after their death. - https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you... Morally I agree with this, as I can't really see the justification for it. But as I said before, that's the issue with moralist arguments, they can be made both ways. So I'm more interested in practical aspects, maybe inheritance is actually responsible for greater wealth inequality, free market inneficiencies, political instability, and other downsides, but maybe it has upsides as well, though more and more I'm starting to see it as a net negative personally. Haslett argues the practical angle pretty well, summarized here: http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html I recommend reading it, it's a short read.

nybble41 6y ago
Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestricted use of it ("to bind it up from posterity", not to decide which particular posterity inherits it). I would generally agree that someone currently living must always hold the property rights—the dead cannot own property, so if the rights did not transfer then the property would be abandoned and free for anyone to claim via homesteading. That, however, is a separate matter from transferring rights to a designated benefactor at the time of death via an explicit prior arrangement such as a will. As for Smith, here we'll just have to disagree. I find it beyond bizarre that anyone would claim that a person has the right to dispose of their property as they wish at any point before death, but not at the moment they die. That distinction is nothing but the most trivial technicality.
- didibus 6y ago
  > Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestricted use of it Did you read the article I linked? Cause that doesn't seem to be the case. He repealed the laws of primogeniture and entail, and he himself quoted Smith, showing that he was in agreement with Smith. And confirmed here as well: > Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth "a danger to the happiness of mankind." From https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-america...
  - nybble41 6y ago
    Primogeniture is again a different matter—that is the idea that the estate, or at least a certain portion of it, must be inherited by the firstborn heir, not a beneficiary chosen by the owner. I would 100% agree with repealing primogeniture laws. Entail, "an interest in land bound up inalienably in the grantee and then forever to his direct descendants"[0], is a reference to the covenant or trust concept I mentioned earlier. Transferring the rights upon death is one thing; making it so that the recipient is subject to restrictions imposed by the deceased donor and unable to dispose of the property as they wish is another. My own position is that for any action to be considered off-limits (i.e., sufficient justification for any punishment or reciprocation involving force) there must be some living person whose rights would be infringed by the action; deceased former owners lack standing in the matter. The article that you linked was behind a paywall, but I read as much of the intro as I was able. Jefferson himself was mostly anti-property in general, as your quote about redistributing all property every 50 years shows, but that was a fringe position among the founders. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail