This is a very playground ‘critique’ of inheritance.
Feel free to refute it, then.
But consider what I said: whatever sentiment you apply to it does not change its nature. My ‘critique’ is not a critique at all; it is a recognition of what inheritance actually is. Dispassionate analysis is the only proper analysis.
Ah, so the socialist attacks inheritence as part of his larger plan to ban all charity. Are you sure you actually put any thought into this?
And policies enacted by economic ignornamuses like you are to blame. No one saves for retirement because they think Uncle Sam is going to take care of them.
I recognise that you might find inheritance ‘distasteful’.
I’m hope you would not disagree that the right of someone to bequeath their belongings is merely an aspect of their liberty, and that in an ideal world they should not fear tampering in this regard.
What did the child do to deserve this?
Dunno, value is subjective
They absolutely go hand in hand, because inheritance is nothing other than arbitrary values in one affecting the prosperity of another
True, so is everything else.
then why does the reward need to be post-humous?
Because that could be the legal definiton of the word, otherwise it may just be called a gift. Of course this isn’t entirely true, you can inherit things when two parties are still alive. It is just a legal tranfer of wealth to an appointed heir.
Why was the reward not issued in life, appropriate to the action which merited it?
Dunno, different strokes for different folks I guess, besides merit a proportion is subjective.
Inheritance is merely saying: Hey, I don’t need this anymore, so you can have it.
Not by the definition of the word, no. You are adding context and motive where it can not be added if you want to use an accurate definition of inheretence.
It is something for, objectively, nothing.
Value is subjective.
As a recovering socialdemocrat myself, it is my experience that the overwhelming majority of socialists, particularly the young ones ascribe to socialism simply because they do not know any better. But they mean well. They want the exact same thing we want - peace, liberty and prosperity.
But they are economically illiterate. Painfully so in fact.
When I started to actually study economics, I quickly realized that among my leftist friends being ignorant of even the most basic concepts of economics was actually considered somewhat fashionable. And I´m not talking explicity Austrian stuff here - most of them would have been hard-pressed to correctly read a simple supply and demand graph, or explain how interest rates work. Worrying about all that stuff was considered a sign of being…it’s hard to describe, pedantic might be the word?
Thinking about practical issues like how to finance the social programs they were calling for(and that I wholeheartedly supported at the time), or working out problems with how to avoid people dodging the taxes they wanted to impose, was just so NERDY, and a sign that your heart wasn’t 100% into “the cause”. Being passionate about the cause was more respectable than actually sitting down and thinking, OK, how do we realistically accomplish the goals we are aiming for?"
Needless to say, I rarely associate with this circle of friends anymore. They don’t understand me, and I don’t understand them. But I have no doubt that we still share the same basic goals regardless, and that they are good people that are letting their hearts do the thinking - not their brains.
What did the child born with no limbs do to deserve this? What did the child born into poverty do to deserve this? What did the child with some kind of exceptional ability that ensures his well being for his life do to deserve this?
No libertarian will claim that any of these people deserved their fate, what we will argue is that there is no rational and effective way to redistribute wealth in order to ‘equalise’ these inequalities. Redistributing inheritance applies in just the same way.
I’d just like to say thanks to the people who’ve replied to this thread, it has helped me somewhat.