Libertarianism and Inheritance

[shanek]

Could be a long wait. Not for nothing does shanek identify with the Finding Nemo seagulls (and for those who've come to this forum recently, he actually had the gulls as his avatar with mine mine mine repeatedly in his sig line. Or, as Dave Barry might say, I'm not making this up).

There, do you see, lurkers? Do you see the treatment I get from the bigoted woo-woos on this forum? Geez...

 

[Mr Manifesto]

There, do you see, lurkers? Do you see the treatment I get from the bigoted woo-woos on this forum? Geez...

Why don't you try casting yourself as the underdog and seeing if anyone feels sorry for you? Oh...

 

[shanek]

Now you're saying you don't even know what a claimant is.

Cain is justifying the existance of estate taxes. It's therefore up to him to make the claim.

The system already in place is a tax on estates.

So?

You are proposing a change to this system, ie, no such tax. You are the one who has to back up your claims, not Cain.

No, I'm asking that those who propose the current system—which the government has no Constitutional authority for, BTW (sorry, but that seems just a LITTLE relevant here)—support their arguments.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Cain is justifying the existance of estate taxes. It's therefore up to him to make the claim.



So?



No, I'm asking that those who propose the current system—which the government has no Constitutional authority for, BTW (sorry, but that seems just a LITTLE relevant here)—support their arguments.

Ah, now I remember why I don't argue with you... I forgot about your monomanical loon complex. I'm getting that pain in my forehead again:

 

[shanek]

From the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution:

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

From Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution:

No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

And in case you're unaware, the US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

So, explain again, why is mine the radical position here? Why is mine the one that needs to be defended? Why does Cain's get to win be default?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

From the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution:



From Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution:



And in case you're unaware, the US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

So, explain again, why is mine the radical position here? Why is mine the one that needs to be defended? Why does Cain's get to win be default?

 

[Ed]

I think the definitive argument against inheritance is Paris Hilton.

I was thinking of posting the exact same thought. Problem is she will always be hyper affluent.

She is quite revolting though.

 

[Darat]

I was thinking of posting the exact same thought. Problem is she will always be hyper affluent.

She is quite revolting though.

Think you made a typo O great one - you said "always ... affluent", I think you meant "always ... effluent”.

 

[Rob Lister]

...Warren Buffet, (sez) Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."

That is the crux of the matter. Warren considers the resources as belonging to the nation. Perhaps he should give them back to their owner.

 

[Luke T.]

Through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the future lot of his fellow-creatures. When the legislator has regulated the law of inheritance, he may rest from his labor. The machine once put in motion will go on for ages, and advance, as if self-guided, towards a given point. When framed in a particular manner, this law unites, draws together, and vests property and power in a few hands: its tendency is clearly aristocratic. On opposite principles its action is still more rapid; it divides, distributes, and disperses both property and power. Alarmed by the rapidity of its progress, those who despair of arresting its motion endeavor to obstruct it by difficulties and impediments; they vainly seek to counteract its effect by contrary efforts; but it gradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until by its incessant activity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth are ground down to the fine and shifting sand which is the basis of democracy. When the law of inheritance permits, still more when it decrees, the equal division of a father’s property amongst all his children, its effects are of two kinds: it is important to distinguish them from each other, although they tend to the same end.

In virtue of the law of partible inheritance, the death of every proprietor brings about a kind of revolution in property; not only do his possessions change hands, but their very nature is altered, since they are parcelled into shares, which become smaller and smaller at each division. This is the direct and, as it were, the physical effect of the law. It follows, then, that in countries where equality of inheritance is established by law, property, and especially landed property, must have a tendency to perpetual diminution. The effects, however, of such legislation would only be perceptible after a lapse of time, if the law was abandoned to its own working; for supposing the family to consist of two children (and in a country people as France is the average number is not above three), these children, sharing amongst them the fortune of both parents, would not be poorer than their father or mother.

Alexix de Tocqueville

Just by eliminating the aristocratic practice of primogeniture, wealth gets redistributed over time.

As for "unfair advantage," rich kids get an advantage long before they inherit through the death of their parent. Education at Harvard or Yale, take over dad's company, etc. Is anyone proposing to legislate these advantages away, too?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

...considers the resources as belonging to the nation. Perhaps he should give them back to their owner.

That would be his wife?


And her damned WASP rot heroin-freaked kids.

 

[BillyTK]

From the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution:



From Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution:



And in case you're unaware, the US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

So you'd be fine with inheritance tax in other countries which are not covered by the US constitution, or is there some fundamental principle at stake here? If so, could you outline it please?

So, explain again, why is mine the radical position here?

You're the token Libertarian? :shrugs:

Why is mine the one that needs to be defended? Why does Cain's get to win be default?

I'm not too sure what you're position is, other than a lot of SHOUTING and exclamation marks!!! about the government and Cain, whereas Cain opened with dispassionate argument which, being the default position we hold to as skeptics, would be the reason why he gets to win.

 

[shanek]

Ah. A cute little animated GIF. Yeah, that really convinces the skeptics...

 

[shanek]

So you'd be fine with inheritance tax in other countries which are not covered by the US constitution, or is there some fundamental principle at stake here? If so, could you outline it please?

I'm talking about lawlessness, anarchy, which is what we have now in Washington. The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land. Congress is actively disobeying it without penalty. Therefore, we have political lawlessness and anarchy in this country. Further, my home state also has such restrictions, so there is lawlessness and anarchy in Raleigh as well.

My point is, let's restore the rule of law first. Then we can debate which parts of the Constitution (like Income Tax) are morally reprehensible and which (like the Bill of Rights) should be exalted. But there's no point at all if Congress can ignore the Constitution at a whim.

As for other countries, the same thing applies. If they are issuing the tax in full accordance with their operating charter, then by all means lets discuss the immorality of inheritance taxes. If not, they have political anarchy and the same consideration applies.

You're the token Libertarian? :shrugs:

I'm not too sure what you're position is

I haven't really stated one. I've been trying to get Cain to support his.

whereas Cain opened with dispassionate argument which, being the default position we hold to as skeptics, would be the reason why he gets to win.

I don't really see how it's "dispassionate," but either way, NO skeptic should accept an unsupported claim.

 

[Luke T.]

If a son inherits his father's company instead of cold cash, how is that taxed? If it is taxed to the point of putting people in the company out of work, how is this a benefit to society?

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Okay, where did I say I personally was any kind of authority here? I'm just taying it's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS, and challenging you to prove that it is, which you REFUSE to do.

I have answered it many times. You simply refuse to support your assertions. Answer straight: How is this any of the government's business?

No, it rests on the fact that if you want to use force to intrude into my life you'd better have a damn good reason.

These three paragraphs are bundled together because they're important. Here again, for at least the third time, I will explain with a demonstrative example; a recurring example.

This time grandpa dies in a hospital (again under suspicious circumstances) and leaves a will saying his remains are to be disposed of according to the wishes of his eldest son.

The police come in to investigate and decide they want to take the body back to their crime lab. The eldest son protests. He owns the body, right? He can do with it as he pleases, right? It's basically his property, right?

But even here I think even libertarians will acknowledge that the state has a legitimiate claim. So property -- voluntarily bequeathed, or transferred -- is not inviolable. There are over-riding considerations; trumps (which nearly all sane people understand without much difficulty).

Here the same objections apply, and most people, (dare I say?) including libertarians, find them wanting.

There are at least two possible replies-

1) The police have no authority to seize the body. They do not own it. It's none of their business.

2) The police can seize and examine the body because of reason X. Reason X, which I have yet to see, will give us considerable insight into what a libertarian accepts as trump over private property.

I think the overwhelming majority of people regards 1) as intuitively unacceptable. Investigating crimes is the business of the police, even if that means overruling an owner.

Moralistic or rights-based libertarianism has little appeal to the general public, as R. W. Bradford says, because it relies more on dogma and declarations than on evidence, reasoning, and dialogue. It reaches sweeping and detailed policy conclusions in a suspiciously easy way, with scant attention to the real world. - Leland Yeager

And I think that nails it. All this crap about me being the "claimant" ignores a critical, counter-intuitive, unsupported, ill-defined notion of "natural rights."

I mean, if you fanatically believe in natural rights then there's nothing anyone can say or do to convince otherwise. I'm going to prove they're not inherent? No, instead the purpose of the argument is to highlight other, possibly over-riding, concerns. A fair society, one that maximizes choice, one that rewards talent and effort, one that's more efficient, and so on.


Shanek: If possible, can you quote an entire paragraph and then respond in paragraph form? Your quick one-line or two word (non-)replies disrupt formatting after awhile.

Originally posted by shanek Ah. So I guess murder isn't a crime because the person's dead. Desecrating a corpse or a grave isn't a crime because the person's dead. Basic fact, right? (Here's a basic fact: there are some still-living people in this scenario you're deliberately ignoring.)

I never used the word "crime"; I was talking about intrusion. Meaning, a "death tax" is the easiest to pay because you get to enjoy your fantastic wealth, and then it's taken away after you die. It's among the least painful to pay.

Support this ridiculous assertion. If the progeny didn't earn [their inheritance], who did?

Yes, it's just such a "ridiculous" notion -- the idea that a twenty year-old who has never worked in his life inherits 50 million dollars and he, somehow, earned it. But you might be right: Maybe it takes real talent to be born into a rich family.

More of your crap. Individuals create wealth all of the time. I create wealth every time I mow my lawn or design a web page.

Show me ONE example of wealth being "socially created." (Note: being created by a group of individuals is NOT the same thing.)

No, a social and economic infrastructure allows you to generate wealth. The Internet came out of the public sector. People could not read it unless they're educated. You're allowed to specialize in web design because others specialize in supplying food, constructing buildings, generating electricy, and so on. Maybe someone can take you on a guided tour of Adam Smith's pin factory.

So you think it's perfectly all right to pick someone's pocket as long as you give the money to the needy.

Yes, that's what I believe. That's exactly what I believe. Well, perhaps a slight modification is in order: so long as the person getting his wallet stolen is rich. I'm sure you'll continue to identify and explain the numerous straw men as you see them.

[snip]

You brought EVERYONE's kids into this, including mine. And you have NO RESPONSE for my criticism.

*shakes head* You're personalizing matters again. I mention the estate tax and I'm somehow, bizarrely enough, bringing YOUR kids into these matters. No, I'm discussing the ethics of this philosophical policy. If I wanted to discuss a murder then I'm not necessarily bringing up every specific person who was murdered. Moreover, the estate tax only applies to relatively tiny portion of the population. That you can say I'm bringing "everyone's" -- or "EVERYONE's," if you prefer-- merely highlights your ignorance.

I did [identify a straw man; demonstrate how they mischaracterizes my position. Identify ad hominems; appeals to authority]

Where? No you didn't. Nearly every time you claim I've erected I ask how that is so. Where are the ad hominems to which you obliquely refer? The argument from authority?
Again, I did. Yet, you refuse to aupport your accusationt hat I use appeal to authority all of the time.

Freedom is the absence of force. In the former scenario, I can use my intellect and whatever resources I can get together to get off the island. In the latter scenario, you can't. The fact that you refuse to grasp this basic difference shows why you have nothing of all to offer to any debate about freedom. You refuse to even see the concept.

Ah, so a person who has been (consciously) forced onto an island cannot use her intellect and resources to get off the island? Yes, I do indeed "refuse to grasp this basic difference." I am curious why Isiah Berlin, the philosopher who first famously distinguished these two concepts of liberty in his influential essay aptly titled "Two Concepts of Liberty". I think you have a real breakthrough here, Shanek.

You base everything on what YOU have, and if one person has something and another doesn't, even if the first person earned it and the second didn't, you scream "unfair."

I don't really think you're in a position to say I'm "screaming" anything. I will also point out that you've misunderstood my view.

And I have responded to them. Your claim that I have ignored them or have no response to them is just another one of your lies.

This is another one of those instances where you quote me, but the quote is really just an automatic formality, and you didn't take the time to understand.

Here's what I wrote (and what was quoted): That definition [of freedom], those arguments, have been addressed ad nauseum on these forums (see positive versus negative liberty threads).

I didn't say you've "ignored" them. You've consistently misunderstood them. The "lies" part is rather typical Shanek nonsense.

Rights don't "come from" anywhere. They are inherent in us as human beings, because we have them unless someone else uses force to stop us from exercising them. That's not a radical view; that's the very idea this country was founded on.

The view the US was founded on, which draws heavily from the enlightenment thinking of Locke, did indeed believe rights were inherent. Locke said that we are born "free, independent, and equal." Darwin's dangerous idea overturned that view, however.

Because he specifically hired the caterer to perform a service. He entered into the agreement voluntarily. This just shows the depths you will go to in order to try and distract from your complete and utter failure to support your point, by bringing up a completely irrelevant example. Regardless of whether or not anyone died, caterers cost money to hire. You're just so pathetic.

No, go back up and read the exchange. You made a great fuss about the "force" required to take property from your offspring. Here "force" is involved as well, but we do not immediately dimiss it as unjustified.

[snip, snip, snip, snip]

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

This time grandpa dies in a hospital (again under suspicious circumstances) and leaves a will saying his remains are to be disposed of according to the wishes of his eldest son.

The police come in to investigate and decide they want to take the body back to their crime lab. The eldest son protests. He owns the body, right?

This entire example is irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about his estate, not his remains. And we're also not talking about the government getting what it needs in order to investigate a crime. Try again.

I never used the word "crime";

Yet your entire defense rests around the police investigating a crime. Again, we're not talking about that.

Yes, it's just such a "ridiculous" notion -- the idea that a twenty year-old who has never worked in his life inherits 50 million dollars and he, somehow, earned it.

You think that kid was just languishing around his whole life up until that time? Do you REALLY think that?

Besides, it doesn't matter what the kid earned or didn't earn, the FATHER earned it, so the FATHER gets to say where it goes, even posthumously.

No, a social and economic infrastructure allows you to generate wealth.

BS.

The Internet came out of the public sector.

I've explained to you several times why this is wrong. The internet would be NOTHING today without the PRIVATE SECTOR technologies that went into it and it only got going after the government got itself completely out of it and became just another user.

People could not read it unless they're educated.

Again you show your ignorance. Well-designed web pages can be run through a text-to-speech processor and the web page can deliver content to the blind or illiterate.

You're allowed to specialize in web design because others specialize in supplying food, constructing buildings, generating electricy, and so on. Maybe someone can take you on a guided tour of Adam Smith's pin factory.

Yes, all sorts of other INDIVIDUALS are working on that. Your point?

Yes, that's what I believe. That's exactly what I believe.

Okay, I just want to repeat what I said because it seems important:

So you think it's perfectly all right to pick someone's pocket as long as you give the money to the needy.

Well, perhaps a slight modification is in order: so long as the person getting his wallet stolen is rich.

Ah. So you're a bigoted thief, then. And, of course, you get to choose who is rich and who is needy.

In either event, you believe in the immoral and selfish maxim that the ends justify the means.

You're personalizing matters again. I mention the estate tax and I'm somehow, bizarrely enough, bringing YOUR kids into these matters.

Not bizarrely; you ARE. What you're talking about affects people like me and your neighbors, directly and adversely. You just don't like attaching real people to your assertions. But you having your way implemented absolutely affects what I will be able to pass on to my kids.

If I wanted to discuss a murder then I'm not necessarily bringing up every specific person who was murdered.

No, but you DO need to consider the people who are murdered, their families and loved ones (all of whom are victims as well), etc. You refuse to acknowledge the human price of what you advocate.

Moreover, the estate tax only applies to relatively tiny portion of the population.

So did the Income Tax once. Why should I believe that THIS TIME it's not gonna be expanded just like every other tax in history?

[blathering and denial deleted]

Ah, so a person who has been (consciously) forced onto an island cannot use her intellect and resources to get off the island?

Not if someone is holding him into servitude by force as your case illustrated. At the very least, all of his efforts to escape are severely curtailed.

I really find it hard to beleive that even you cannot see the difference here.

[more of Cain talking out of both sides of his mouth excised]

No, go back up and read the exchange. You made a great fuss about the "force" required to take property from your offspring. Here "force" is involved as well, but we do not immediately dimiss it as unjustified.

No, there is no force here. He entered into the agreement willingly. Any force would only come into play when he refuses to pay, thereby engaging in thievery. Again, I find it very difficult to beleive that even you cannot see the distinction here.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

This time grandpa dies in a hospital (again under suspicious circumstances) and leaves a will saying his remains are to be disposed of according to the wishes of his eldest son.

The police come in to investigate and decide they want to take the body back to their crime lab. The eldest son protests. He owns the body, right? He can do with it as he pleases, right? It's basically his property, right?

But even here I think even libertarians will acknowledge that the state has a legitimiate claim. So property -- voluntarily bequeathed, or transferred -- is not inviolable. There are over-riding considerations; trumps (which nearly all sane people understand without much difficulty).

Here the same objections apply, and most people, (dare I say?) including libertarians, find them wanting.

There are at least two possible replies-

1) The police have no authority to seize the body. They do not own it. It's none of their business.

2) The police can seize and examine the body because of reason X. Reason X, which I have yet to see, will give us considerable insight into what a libertarian accepts as trump over private property.

I think the overwhelming majority of people regards 1) as intuitively unacceptable. Investigating crimes is the business of the police, even if that means overruling an owner.

I don't think that your example is really appropriate.

Police may seize anything (human remains or property) when they are investigating a crime. However, following whatever investigation has taken place, the police will later release the remains or property to whomever is the rightful claimant. Whatever claims that the government may make are temporary. (However, in the case of a 'death tax', the government will keep whatever funds are raised.)

So, your 'example' doesn't really apply here.

Meaning, a "death tax" is the easiest to pay because you get to enjoy your fantastic wealth, and then it's taken away after you die. It's among the least painful to pay.

It may be 'painless', but is it really fair? There are several ways it fails that way:
- Money paid in inheritance taxes has already been taxed. So basically its a double taxation
- A person may find their enjoyment comes from the idea of leaving their wealth to their children. (Its not something I would find fun, but if a person gets pleasure working extra-hard for no other reason than they want to leave money to their children, should they have that taken away from them?)

Yes, it's just such a "ridiculous" notion -- the idea that a twenty year-old who has never worked in his life inherits 50 million dollars and he, somehow, earned it. But you might be right: Maybe it takes real talent to be born into a rich family.

Where do you draw the line? At what point do you say "person X is inheriting too much money"? If I'm middle-class, and work for a living, do I deserve any money that my parents had when they pass on?

And what about objects of sentimental value? (Something like jewlery that's been in the family for generations, etc.) Should that be taken away as part of the inheritance tax?

Just out of curiosity, are you also against allowing people to take out life insurance? After all, if you don't want people to inherit money they didn't earn, surely you must be against people getting paid money from insurance companies that they didn't earn.

Yes, that's what I believe. That's exactly what I believe. Well, perhaps a slight modification is in order: so long as the person getting his wallet stolen is rich. I'm sure you'll continue to identify and explain the numerous straw men as you see them.

How exactly do you define 'rich'? Assets of more than $1 million? $2 million? $10 million? And how do you define 'needy'? Do you factor responsibility into the situation? (Or will you give to the 'poor' even if they got their through their own actions, like taking drugs, as opposed to someone who really did have bad luck?)

 

[Darat]

If a son inherits his father's company instead of cold cash, how is that taxed? If it is taxed to the point of putting people in the company out of work, how is this a benefit to society?

So people are made unemployed, they can get another job, they shouldn't have been so dependent on the goodwill of someone else. Isn't that part of the ethos of a libertarian?

(Plus if it was a good profitable company perhaps someone else would be willing to buy it pr the employees could put a deal together and raise the capital.)

Seriously I don't understand how if one of the core guiding principles of libertarism is "it's mine I can do what I like with it" there is any objection to a 100% inheritance tax.

(Edited for be to a been.)

 

[Ed]

If a son inherits his father's company instead of cold cash, how is that taxed? If it is taxed to the point of putting people in the company out of work, how is this a benefit to society?

Depends. If it is privately held, the assets would be taxed like any other property. That's why God (I) invented estate planning.