a caste system is where people get their position in life from birth.
the system of dividing society into classes based on differences in family origin, rank or wealth
if the first born enherits more than the second born, that first born is in a superiar position simple from being born first, rather than merit.
caste is heredity order, primogeniture is by heredity order
the firstborn is divided from the second born by special privaliges, simply because of birth order.
A clan is a group of people united by actual or perceived kinship and descent.
there is nothing about a clan that neccicarly makes the first born some speacial privaliged person more important than the rest or makes the males more important than the females.
the system of nobility and primogeniture is caste in that birth order determines social position and enheritence.
That’s your main flaw. A caste is a class of people, whereas a firstborn is an individual. Clayton is not talking about ordering all firstborns into a caste, and all secondborns into another class, and so on.
I don’t think that a firstborn ought to inhereit most of or all of an estate just by virtue of the fact that he’s a firstborn, but there’s no reason to twist Clayton’s words. Most of your responses have little to nothing to do with what Clayton actually writes.
neither of those should be illigal, neither are a best social practice. bob should give his money out as bob wishes, he may or may not want to divide the money in any number of ways. he could give all, some, or none to one or the other.
the difference between 1 and 2 for the second born is that in 1 the money is all gone, in 2 the first born could then give the second born some enheritence.
the option 3
bob gives his 1 million out as bob wishes, is the one i think bob should choose.
That’s your main flaw. A caste is a class of people, whereas a firstborn is an individual. Clayton is not talking about ordering all firstborns into a caste, and all secondborns into another class, and so on.
its a family order system where people are ranked by order and gender so individual classes are formed in the family. it affects how the children are raised. raising the first born male to enherit the family wealth means raising the next kin for different roles. males get higher in line than females under primogeniture, and first born males get higher than second born, so that effects the how children are raised as well.
i don’t think clayton said to order that, but that it was a best practice, suggesting that it be preferable to other methods of enheritence and that fathers should voluntarily move to this choice of favoring firstborn males as a best practice.
with private power in the family, how families choose to structure has a big influence on each individual. primogeniture is a system of nobility and feudalism more than a system of capitalism.
I don’t think primogeniture is necessarily good. It would have to depend. As a firstborn male, I would get everything while my sister would get nothing. I think that’s weird, and I don’t support it. I know my parents don’t either. I’m not sure that Clayton is saying that it is necessarily good. I may be mistaken, but I thought Clayton was comparing male primogeniture in relation to what exists now - alimony, child support without being able to see your children regularly or even at all, etc.
Why don’t you just ask what he means instead of bringing up drunken men raping their communist wives who have no business sense?
Feudalism and capitalism are economic and politcal systems. Primogeniture is a system of inheritance. One has nothing to do with the other.
it is if it’s by birth order or by gender and static. if people cannot move up or down in the heiarchy, and the heiarchy is determined by birth order or gender that is caste like. people’s status in life, society, and the family are predetermined by birth and not by any action of their own.
laws of inheritance are political. there are laws about inheritance and there are wills. inheritence is property, and property is economics. inheritence involves wealth, does it not?
if one family member gets to own land, and another does not get to own land, by privalige of birth, then that is relevant. if the first born male is the most powerful member of the family and gets to own all the land, then other members are subordinate to the rules and power of the first born.
capitalism has to do with wealth, inheritence has to do with wealth, therefore they both have to do with wealth.
wealth has to do with family structure and power structures.
if liberty depends on material and spiritual wealth, giving all to the first born male gives that firstborn male more liberty.
I’m not making a value judgment in saying that I believe it rationalizes the family, see Mises’s remarks above about the various competencies of children. I say male primogeniture because men have lower time-preference than women, as a rule (in respect to the household, at least). This is not in contrast to alimony but in contrast to the estate tax which eviscerates inheritances and Social Security which unlinks the natural generational interdependency, and so on. I believe some jurisdictions also regulate the terms of inheritances in such a way that primogeniture is not possible in a multi-child family.
As far as value-judgments go, I think that rational family structure is to be preferred to irrational family structure so I think that family patriarchs with libertarian values ought to adopt male primogeniture. However, this should be combined with the “natural unit” of family socialism, that is, all members of the family in matrilineal descent should fall under the care of the family patriarch. This is practiced by the Jewish community among others. Basically, the male heir inherits not only the family fortune but also the obligation to see to it that all his matrilineal relatives (that is, his sisters but not necessarily his brothers) are cared for. Along with this comes an interest in eliminating undesirable mates from courting his female relatives and, vice-versa, to encourage his female relatives to select financially independent mates who can lift the burden off the household of having to provide for them.
The battalions of feminist enforcers of moral orthodoxy will recoil in horror but I really don’t care. They are the ones who have lost touch with reality and they are not really furthering women’s rights. They are carrying water on behalf of forces that most of them do not even understand and what they are really accomplishing is the discoordination of household law and the irrationalization of family structure.
Caste-like and caste are different things. Please read about castes. Family hierarchies are not castes.
So what? I never said that inheritance had not political or economic implications. I said that inheritance is neither an economic nor a political system.
This is unbelievably irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Liberty does not depend upon material and spiritual wealth.
cab21, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you really need to study English. You are not comprehending what people on this board write, and the vast majority of your misunderstandings would be cleared up if you understood English better. You need to improve your English.
To each his own, but I don’t see the value in giving control of the entire inheritance to one person based on order of birth and sex. My ideal would be that the parents accumulate wealth and investments throughout their lives, and they pass off control of it equally. I don’t mean split it up. They should keep the investments together so that the heirs can continue to benefit from them and increase them. Or the heirs could split up the inheritance if they desired.
Obviously I would be okay with some heirs receiving more or less (or even not at all) depending upon their relationship with their parents. But I don’t think male primogeniture is a good method of organization. It reduces the power to one person so that one person can threaten disinheritance if family members don’t follow his lead. I see no value in this.
I think we need to have a holistic approach. Material wealth and health is the greatest facilitator of the conditions for mental and spiritual freedom, and vice-versa.
so the economic implications of primogeniture and inheritence are relevant to the topic at hand, which is the power implications of primogeniture and how it affects the family.
In a society based on caste and status, the individual can ascribe adverse fate to conditions beyond his own control. He is a slave because the superhuman powers that determine all becoming had assigned him this rank.
It is quite another thing under capitalism. Here everybody’s station in life depends on his own doing.
You really need to learn English. I don’t know how much longer I’m going to be able to go around on this nonsense. Clayton said it was the greatest facilitator of liberty, not that liberty depends upon those things.
Relevant to the fact that inheritance is neither an economic nor a political system? That’s the topic we’ve been discussing for the last several posts. If there is another topic you’d like to discuss, then fine. But as it is, that is entirely irrelevant.
Wow. You need to learn English. Badly. This is entirely irrelevant to what we have been talking about.
Seriously. You need to stop posting in this thread until you learn English better.
Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings.
sta·tusnoun, often attributive \ˈstā-təs, ˈsta-\
pluralsta·tus·es
Definition of STATUS1
a: position or rank in relation to others <the status of a father>
a society that gives inheritence based on birth status will likely lose out to one that gives inheriteance due to other factors
premegeniture is birth status, so yes status is relevant to status. if people inheret based on their own doing rather than birth status, it will make for a stronger society
You are an idiot. Facilitate does not mean necessary. You need to stop posting in this thread. You need to study English first. That you continue to do so with such ignorance demonstrates that you are also an idiot.
You are an idiot. This is not what we were discussing. You need to stop posting in this thread.
You are either an idiot or a troll. I think you are just stupid.
