4 ms·

Serious question, what is wrong with a noble class? If the family line squanders that wealth, then they weren’t noble. If they are wise with it and good stewa

Serious question, what is wrong with a noble class? If the family line squanders that wealth, then they weren’t noble. If they are wise with it and good stewards, then it seems like it makes sense that they would become part of the nobility. It isn’t some zero sum game, where there is some limited amount of wealth, and by them having it others must be destitute. I’d be curious if those with several children feel differently than those with none. I love the idea of my sacrifices today one day benefitting my grandchildren’s’ grandchildren in a material way. I feel like if more people lived with the thoughts of how they can improve their own descendants lives over improving their own the world would be a better place.

mostertoaster 5y ago
Like I’d hope that my daughters have enough that they don’t have to feel like they have to get married, or if they do that they could feel they have the option to stay home and take care of their children without having to work to make ends meet. I’d hope my grandchildren are so well off that they can go get a higher education and get a liberal arts degree for the love of learning. Study history, philosophy, sociology, these are all great fields of study, they just don’t pay well. That they could just be intellectuals and not laborers would be great. After a few generations of just being intellectuals or less if they live lavishly, they will have to return to labor, and that ok. There is nothing wrong with folks like me getting an engineering degree because they want to work and make money, but it doesn’t seem like a bad desire to hope that your children will not have to labor because you did.
- fredophile 5y ago
  I really like this quote from Warren Buffet “Leave your children enough money so they can do anything, but not enough that they don’t have to do anything.” I want my children to be able to do what they want. However, I want to raise productive, functioning adults.
  - mostertoaster 5y ago
    I don’t think raising productive functioning adults is mutually exclusive from leaving them an inheritance enabling them not to work to live. There is too much ideas that unless you get paid to do something it isn’t worthwhile. I wish people could study the liberal arts or sciences freely to expand knowledge, not for the sake of money. This is a privilege only provided to those whose parents leave them a large inheritance.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      You're conflating some things. The reason that people have the idea that "unless you get paid to do something it isn’t worthwhile" is because getting paid for something is reasonable evidence that you're creating value for others. That's important to do if you will be consuming the value created by others. Children raised without that feedback loop can easily be not so functional, in that will focus on serving themselves, not others. If you have enough money to fund things like socially beneficial research, then you should just fund that. The MacArthur Genius Grants are a good example of that. There's no particular reason to think that your particular children are the best ones to be doing that, especially if they've been raised in an environment where their wealth has let them avoid serving others.
suzzer99 5y ago
The problem is that it is largely a zero sum game. Everyone can't be nobility who never has to work a day in their lives. If some % of the population becomes entrenched as perpetual nobility, it becomes almost impossible for anyone else to break in. See feudalism.
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  I still don’t think it is a zero sum game, persay, but that is a good point about entrenched nobility. Even then the problem is are they exploitative, or are they generous. Then having power is only bad if they are evil. But fortune and chance will affect all, some will rise up, and some will fall down. I think as a whole the economic pie would grow if all of us strove that our families might become nobility.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    No, power over others is intrinsically bad, as it's the ability to force people to do things whether or not they think it's what they should be doing. Sometimes it's necessary to prevent further harm, of course. So we should always be seeking to limit and diminish power differentials in society. If you disagree, you can demonstrate your commitment by giving me unlimited power of attorney. I'll use that to your assets and income to my accounts and I'll give you back whatever's truly best for you. I am obviously good, so you can trust me on this.
    - mostertoaster 5y ago
      Power over others is not intrinsically bad. It is an utter fact of nature. In some sense having power over others is neutral. What is also true is there are those who are weak. And everyone will have some little power at least, and some amount of weakness. While Marx thinks it is only used to oppress, that is just what he would do with it. I’d say for every person there is an amount of power they can wield for good, and past that they will use it to oppress. The most wicked can’t even use their smallest bits of power for good. The best of us at some point would start to use our power to oppress. There is no neutral ground though, you will use your power (be it physical, emotional, sociological, spiritual), to oppress the weak, or to lift them up. Because in order to have power in one area (e.g. you’re highly educated, speak well, or wealthy), there is someone else who must be weak (uneducated, stammers, or poor). To say power is intrinsically bad, is to say being weak is intrinsically bad, because being weak means someone else has power over you. “blessed are the meek” is true, but that is because someone powerful took the side of the weak, and defends them. The problem today is we have a ruling aristocracy, and they’re not noble and good, but oppressive and evil.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
> It isn’t some zero sum game, where there is some limited amount of wealth, and by them having it others must be destitute Take a look at some of the recent "Who owns Britain" exposés, which looks at land ownership in Britain. Last I checked they weren't making any more land, and a huge percentage of British land is held by nobility who passed it down from the times of William the Conqueror. Am I supposed to think it "just" that someone never has to work a day in their life, while their tenant farmers toil to pay rent, because their great great ... great great grandaddy was friends with a French king?
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  You have the same thing today. The better equivalent of the aristocracy back then is the political leaders today. Back then the merchant class began to gain lots of wealth, which the aristocracy (government leaders) could inhibit, but wouldn’t as long as they got their cut (taxes)
JakeTheAndroid 5y ago
I mean, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. If you think having an entrenched class system is good, then I guess nothing is "wrong" with it. Sure, early on in the system it's possible for it to be fairly competitive. You have a mix of responsible and irresponsible families passing down wealth, and the ones that do it best will retain their wealth the longest. But over time it becomes a very different game. Take a look through history; the stories it tells don't look good for the bulk of the working class. It's one thing to be able to leave your wealth to your children, it's another thing to have a completely protected trust that is exempt taxes. The longer this runs, the less money forced back into the economy and through compounding interest it becomes impossible for a new set of "nobility" to reasonable ever achieve the same status. It is a zero sum game, as there is effectively a limited amount of wealth. And the more it becomes centralized around a noble class the less everyone else has. You can leave money to your children today, it's not like that's not possible. So I am not sure what you're on about. The loophole being discussed here is doing it free from taxes. Like Elon Musk won't need to shelter his kids kids kids from taxes on his billions. If you make enough money that can be true for you too. But yeah, you might need to teach your kids proper financial skills so that they don't blow through what you leave them so it reaches your grandchildren. You can already setup a trust today for your kids. You can leave your kids shares in a brokerage account and that has some pretty solid tax advantages. There are a ton of ways to leave behind your wealth that doesn't require completely untaxed assets.

mostertoaster 5y ago

Like I’d hope that my daughters have enough that they don’t have to feel like they have to get married, or if they do that they could feel they have the option to stay home and take care of their children without having to work to make ends meet. I’d hope my grandchildren are so well off that they can go get a higher education and get a liberal arts degree for the love of learning. Study history, philosophy, sociology, these are all great fields of study, they just don’t pay well. That they could just be intellectuals and not laborers would be great. After a few generations of just being intellectuals or less if they live lavishly, they will have to return to labor, and that ok. There is nothing wrong with folks like me getting an engineering degree because they want to work and make money, but it doesn’t seem like a bad desire to hope that your children will not have to labor because you did.

fredophile 5y ago
I really like this quote from Warren Buffet “Leave your children enough money so they can do anything, but not enough that they don’t have to do anything.” I want my children to be able to do what they want. However, I want to raise productive, functioning adults.
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  I don’t think raising productive functioning adults is mutually exclusive from leaving them an inheritance enabling them not to work to live. There is too much ideas that unless you get paid to do something it isn’t worthwhile. I wish people could study the liberal arts or sciences freely to expand knowledge, not for the sake of money. This is a privilege only provided to those whose parents leave them a large inheritance.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    You're conflating some things. The reason that people have the idea that "unless you get paid to do something it isn’t worthwhile" is because getting paid for something is reasonable evidence that you're creating value for others. That's important to do if you will be consuming the value created by others. Children raised without that feedback loop can easily be not so functional, in that will focus on serving themselves, not others. If you have enough money to fund things like socially beneficial research, then you should just fund that. The MacArthur Genius Grants are a good example of that. There's no particular reason to think that your particular children are the best ones to be doing that, especially if they've been raised in an environment where their wealth has let them avoid serving others.

suzzer99 5y ago

The problem is that it is largely a zero sum game. Everyone can't be nobility who never has to work a day in their lives. If some % of the population becomes entrenched as perpetual nobility, it becomes almost impossible for anyone else to break in. See feudalism.

mostertoaster 5y ago
I still don’t think it is a zero sum game, persay, but that is a good point about entrenched nobility. Even then the problem is are they exploitative, or are they generous. Then having power is only bad if they are evil. But fortune and chance will affect all, some will rise up, and some will fall down. I think as a whole the economic pie would grow if all of us strove that our families might become nobility.
- wpietri 5y ago
  No, power over others is intrinsically bad, as it's the ability to force people to do things whether or not they think it's what they should be doing. Sometimes it's necessary to prevent further harm, of course. So we should always be seeking to limit and diminish power differentials in society. If you disagree, you can demonstrate your commitment by giving me unlimited power of attorney. I'll use that to your assets and income to my accounts and I'll give you back whatever's truly best for you. I am obviously good, so you can trust me on this.
  - mostertoaster 5y ago
    Power over others is not intrinsically bad. It is an utter fact of nature. In some sense having power over others is neutral. What is also true is there are those who are weak. And everyone will have some little power at least, and some amount of weakness. While Marx thinks it is only used to oppress, that is just what he would do with it. I’d say for every person there is an amount of power they can wield for good, and past that they will use it to oppress. The most wicked can’t even use their smallest bits of power for good. The best of us at some point would start to use our power to oppress. There is no neutral ground though, you will use your power (be it physical, emotional, sociological, spiritual), to oppress the weak, or to lift them up. Because in order to have power in one area (e.g. you’re highly educated, speak well, or wealthy), there is someone else who must be weak (uneducated, stammers, or poor). To say power is intrinsically bad, is to say being weak is intrinsically bad, because being weak means someone else has power over you. “blessed are the meek” is true, but that is because someone powerful took the side of the weak, and defends them. The problem today is we have a ruling aristocracy, and they’re not noble and good, but oppressive and evil.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

> It isn’t some zero sum game, where there is some limited amount of wealth, and by them having it others must be destitute Take a look at some of the recent "Who owns Britain" exposés, which looks at land ownership in Britain. Last I checked they weren't making any more land, and a huge percentage of British land is held by nobility who passed it down from the times of William the Conqueror. Am I supposed to think it "just" that someone never has to work a day in their life, while their tenant farmers toil to pay rent, because their great great ... great great grandaddy was friends with a French king?

mostertoaster 5y ago
You have the same thing today. The better equivalent of the aristocracy back then is the political leaders today. Back then the merchant class began to gain lots of wealth, which the aristocracy (government leaders) could inhibit, but wouldn’t as long as they got their cut (taxes)

JakeTheAndroid 5y ago

I mean, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. If you think having an entrenched class system is good, then I guess nothing is "wrong" with it. Sure, early on in the system it's possible for it to be fairly competitive. You have a mix of responsible and irresponsible families passing down wealth, and the ones that do it best will retain their wealth the longest. But over time it becomes a very different game. Take a look through history; the stories it tells don't look good for the bulk of the working class. It's one thing to be able to leave your wealth to your children, it's another thing to have a completely protected trust that is exempt taxes. The longer this runs, the less money forced back into the economy and through compounding interest it becomes impossible for a new set of "nobility" to reasonable ever achieve the same status. It is a zero sum game, as there is effectively a limited amount of wealth. And the more it becomes centralized around a noble class the less everyone else has. You can leave money to your children today, it's not like that's not possible. So I am not sure what you're on about. The loophole being discussed here is doing it free from taxes. Like Elon Musk won't need to shelter his kids kids kids from taxes on his billions. If you make enough money that can be true for you too. But yeah, you might need to teach your kids proper financial skills so that they don't blow through what you leave them so it reaches your grandchildren. You can already setup a trust today for your kids. You can leave your kids shares in a brokerage account and that has some pretty solid tax advantages. There are a ton of ways to leave behind your wealth that doesn't require completely untaxed assets.