7 ms·

And to others birthright and fairness in one sentence looks really strange ;)

Waterluvian 4y ago
“Birthright” is this concept that can easily be accepted without question as cosmically inherent. But when you examine it, it doesn’t really make any sense at all. It’s a great way to perpetuate inequality, especially wholly unearned inequality.
- zo1 4y ago
  One could argue that it's "cosmically inherent" that something you earn through your own labor (of the body that you control/own?) should be yours do with as you please, so long as it doesn't hurt others. If you can't accept that fundamental property, we are quite frankly serfs, which is a few steps away from slaves. Slaves not only didn't own their own body, but they also didn't own the fruits of their labor.
  - awinder 4y ago
    You can balance the real dual-interests at play here through progressive taxation, allowing for transfers of wealth that only marginally accelerate society-wide wealth disparity. The slaves/serfs lingo is a little stretched when it applies necessarily to other people, and those other people have had their entire lives to benefit from the wealth of the other person anyways.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    > One could argue that it's "cosmically inherent" that something you earn through your own labor (of the body that you control/own?) should be yours do with as you please, so long as it doesn't hurt others. Why is it only “cosmically inherent” as long as you don’t hurt others? Has the tiger no cosmically inherent right to his meal? The truth is he doesn’t, he must defend his kill if necessary. The truth is you must defend what you’ve earned as well, either by force or through mutual agreement (society). We, as a society, have agreed to grant each other exclusive rights to what we’ve earned. Of course that hasn’t always been the case throughout history. Don’t bring the cosmos into it, it happens through mutual consent, because we choose to. Your rights are man-made, don’t take them for granted. They only exist so long as everyone agrees they do.
- kqr 4y ago
  There are multiple forms of birthright, too. The one we're used to is the right of aggregation -- I had one, inherited another, and now I have two. Another form is the right of selection -- I have one, here's another one that just become unowned, and I get dibs on choosing that over my own. If I retain my own, the other lapses to the public. If I choose the other, mine does.
- flippinburgers 4y ago
  [flagged]
- dismantlethesun 4y ago
  I’m not sure why the idea of perpetuating inequality “doesn’t make sense”. For most of human history that’s literally what civilization has been about: building on the efforts of your ancestors to be better than your neighbors, other tribes, and eventually other empire who would rather see you fail. Note I am not arguing that inequality is an unvarnished good or that history isn’t filled with violence and sin. However, that’s a far cry from saying simply that “birthright” doesn’t make sense at least when talking about purely physical items to be inherited.
  - kaibee 4y ago
    > However, that’s a far cry from saying simply that “birthright” doesn’t make sense at least when talking about purely physical items to be inherited. Land in particular is a special case because more cannot be created (without absolutely massive capital projects and those require some special thinking, but they are outliers). https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-land-really https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-...
    - dismantlethesun 4y ago
      I will agree that land is a special case, but that’s why we tax it continually. I think society needs property tax to perform well, or else people will horde control of land under the mistaken belief that they can sell or rent it for high prices. You need tax to bring people back to reality and force them to use it productively in the present.
  - senthil_rajasek 4y ago
    In the context of one society where some forms of wealth is claimed as "birthright" and thus perpetuating inequality is what does not make sense to me... meaning it is not fair.
- tosc 4y ago
  > But when you examine it, it doesn’t really make any sense at all. It’s a great way to perpetuate inequality, especially wholly unearned inequality. This paragraph doesn’t make any sense at all either. The reason is that there is no meaning whatsoever to the concept of earned inequality, and therefore no meaning to the idea of ‘unearned’ inequality.
sethd 4y ago
Are you saying it’s unfair to inherit something?
- ehnto 4y ago
  It's obviously a nuanced discussion, but it's certainly a personal windfall to inherit land. It's hard to call it unfair, that's just life, but comparing one person who inherited land to someone who did not, it's clear who has the luckiest version of that scenario.
  - voisin 4y ago
    As long as there is sufficiently high property taxes that owners of land are forced to put it to societally useful purpose in order to pay the tax, I don’t see an issue with land inheritances. I don’t agree with “deemed disposition” tax rules that act as if the land was “sold” to the inheritor, triggering massive capital gains taxes.
- selfmodruntime 4y ago
  It‘s unfair to keep large amounts of generational wealth untaxed in the family while hard working people are taxed.
  - voisin 4y ago
    I think the answer is to treat capital gains and dividends the same as ordinary employment income and subject to the same tax rates. Perhaps introduce a sub-1% wealth tax per annum on very large fortunes (100m+) to add friction that the wealthy have to work to counteract.
    - bushbaba 4y ago
      *and to treat loans against capital assets as taxable income. Otherwise we’ll keep seeing the wealthy avoid taxation by loaning against their assets. So long as rates stay relatively low.
    - 4y ago

“Birthright” is this concept that can easily be accepted without question as cosmically inherent. But when you examine it, it doesn’t really make any sense at all. It’s a great way to perpetuate inequality, especially wholly unearned inequality.

zo1 4y ago
One could argue that it's "cosmically inherent" that something you earn through your own labor (of the body that you control/own?) should be yours do with as you please, so long as it doesn't hurt others. If you can't accept that fundamental property, we are quite frankly serfs, which is a few steps away from slaves. Slaves not only didn't own their own body, but they also didn't own the fruits of their labor.
- awinder 4y ago
  You can balance the real dual-interests at play here through progressive taxation, allowing for transfers of wealth that only marginally accelerate society-wide wealth disparity. The slaves/serfs lingo is a little stretched when it applies necessarily to other people, and those other people have had their entire lives to benefit from the wealth of the other person anyways.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  > One could argue that it's "cosmically inherent" that something you earn through your own labor (of the body that you control/own?) should be yours do with as you please, so long as it doesn't hurt others. Why is it only “cosmically inherent” as long as you don’t hurt others? Has the tiger no cosmically inherent right to his meal? The truth is he doesn’t, he must defend his kill if necessary. The truth is you must defend what you’ve earned as well, either by force or through mutual agreement (society). We, as a society, have agreed to grant each other exclusive rights to what we’ve earned. Of course that hasn’t always been the case throughout history. Don’t bring the cosmos into it, it happens through mutual consent, because we choose to. Your rights are man-made, don’t take them for granted. They only exist so long as everyone agrees they do.
kqr 4y ago
There are multiple forms of birthright, too. The one we're used to is the right of aggregation -- I had one, inherited another, and now I have two. Another form is the right of selection -- I have one, here's another one that just become unowned, and I get dibs on choosing that over my own. If I retain my own, the other lapses to the public. If I choose the other, mine does.
flippinburgers 4y ago
[flagged]
dismantlethesun 4y ago
I’m not sure why the idea of perpetuating inequality “doesn’t make sense”. For most of human history that’s literally what civilization has been about: building on the efforts of your ancestors to be better than your neighbors, other tribes, and eventually other empire who would rather see you fail. Note I am not arguing that inequality is an unvarnished good or that history isn’t filled with violence and sin. However, that’s a far cry from saying simply that “birthright” doesn’t make sense at least when talking about purely physical items to be inherited.
- kaibee 4y ago
  > However, that’s a far cry from saying simply that “birthright” doesn’t make sense at least when talking about purely physical items to be inherited. Land in particular is a special case because more cannot be created (without absolutely massive capital projects and those require some special thinking, but they are outliers). https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-land-really https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-...
  - dismantlethesun 4y ago
    I will agree that land is a special case, but that’s why we tax it continually. I think society needs property tax to perform well, or else people will horde control of land under the mistaken belief that they can sell or rent it for high prices. You need tax to bring people back to reality and force them to use it productively in the present.
- senthil_rajasek 4y ago
  In the context of one society where some forms of wealth is claimed as "birthright" and thus perpetuating inequality is what does not make sense to me... meaning it is not fair.
tosc 4y ago
> But when you examine it, it doesn’t really make any sense at all. It’s a great way to perpetuate inequality, especially wholly unearned inequality. This paragraph doesn’t make any sense at all either. The reason is that there is no meaning whatsoever to the concept of earned inequality, and therefore no meaning to the idea of ‘unearned’ inequality.

sethd 4y ago

Are you saying it’s unfair to inherit something?

ehnto 4y ago
It's obviously a nuanced discussion, but it's certainly a personal windfall to inherit land. It's hard to call it unfair, that's just life, but comparing one person who inherited land to someone who did not, it's clear who has the luckiest version of that scenario.
- voisin 4y ago
  As long as there is sufficiently high property taxes that owners of land are forced to put it to societally useful purpose in order to pay the tax, I don’t see an issue with land inheritances. I don’t agree with “deemed disposition” tax rules that act as if the land was “sold” to the inheritor, triggering massive capital gains taxes.
selfmodruntime 4y ago
It‘s unfair to keep large amounts of generational wealth untaxed in the family while hard working people are taxed.
- voisin 4y ago
  I think the answer is to treat capital gains and dividends the same as ordinary employment income and subject to the same tax rates. Perhaps introduce a sub-1% wealth tax per annum on very large fortunes (100m+) to add friction that the wealthy have to work to counteract.
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    *and to treat loans against capital assets as taxable income. Otherwise we’ll keep seeing the wealthy avoid taxation by loaning against their assets. So long as rates stay relatively low.
  - 4y ago