Libertarianism and Inheritance

[Cain]

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

Originally posted by shanek 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.

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

No, it inolves taking property for a social end. Do you understand? Do you understand that the property has been seized for a "higher" reason?


Again, I'm not the least bit surprised. Now it's with more than a fair amount of irony that you will demand that I answer your questions (for the second, third, and fourth times) while completely pussyfooting around mine.

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.

Thank you! Thank you for finally admitting, probably unwittingly that it doesn't even matter whether or not the wealth is earned (it isn't in most cases if you're still wondering). That's not essential to the argument, so you can't quit crying about what rich kids "earned".

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.

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 are comically asinine. Whether or not the Internet would be "NOTHING" without the "PRIVATE SECTOR" ignores the critical role played by the public sector.

The second paragraph is just hilarious. Is your website designed for the blind or illiterate? I mean, you do realize there are necessary social investments to even create that technology, right? The Internet, in its current (and forseeable) form depends heavily on people who can read (and then there are positive feedbacks).

[snip, snip]

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

Yep. You're so perceptive.

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

Oh, but wait, Shanek didn't you once say that you were both a utilitarian and a natural rights proponent? C'mon, that must make you blush even now.

[snip, snip, snip, snip]

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.

Shanek- you're dumb. I made it clear that our circumstances were identical, but the causes of our circumstances were different. We're both trapped on the same island, the only difference being that Dr. Strangelove kidnapped me and dropped me off.

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.

No, you're failing to see the distinction. You said the government would have to resort to force (in the case of an estate tax). QED. Force is force and that's somehow automatically bad. I then produced an example where force is required to seek compensation. The scope is only to show that force is not necessarily wrong. But of course you completely misunderstood, as usual.

*****
--------------------------------------------------
*****
Here's a more interesting reply:



Segnosaur:

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

The purpose of the example is to show that the government may, under certain circumstances, forcibly seize property, and even libertarians seemingly agree. I want to know *why* they agree. On *what grounds* do they agree? That is to say, what is the ratonal behind your opening sentence:

"Police may seize anything (human remains or property) when they are investigating a crime."

Why? Is the above a normative statement? If so, why is the government allowed to deprive a person of her property if it's investigating a crime? What makes that special, different circumstance?

I must say again, if you can explain this it will provide me with great insight.

The emphasis on temporariness is misguided and fails to address fundamentals. Suppose I revise my tax so that only liquid assets are seized. The government reinvests that revenue and promises to pay you back (with interest); that is, make you "whole" again.

A libertarian would still disagree because her property has been taken without consent. "It's NOT okay if you'll pay me back later because I never agreed in the first place!"

Notice that an autospy presents eve more serious difficulties, especially if the person is religious. Desecration is not reversible, and it violates one's most cherished and sacred beliefs.

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?

As I said, that's a policy distinction. The purpose is to first agree on whether or not a line should be drawn.

One possible objection is that the fuziness of a "line" makes it too much of a hassle. But that's practical consideration rather than a principled, natural-rights view.

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?

Robert Nozick, the most brilliant and influential libertarian, finally agreed that an estate tax is justifiable. But not one that seizes all of a person's property precisely because of sentimental, generational value. But again, that's not a principled objection. Even after assuming a high exemption (which allows a person to keep many items), suppose the government creates a special category for pricey heirlooms: You may keep them on the condition that you do not sell them for X number of years.

Here again a libertarian would presumably object because it's a restriction on voluntary transfers.

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.

There are two answers, a long one and short one. I'll give you the short one as it applies to the estate tax (even though I have reservations): yes, life insurance is fine, within limits. Just as I have no problem with the vast majority of estates, for the purpose of argument. The tax only applies to agreeably high transfers (pick a number, 10 million, 50 million, 100 million, it doesn't matter).

 

[Segnosaur]

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

"Police may seize anything (human remains or property) when they are investigating a crime."

Why? Is the above a normative statement? If so, why is the government allowed to deprive a person of her property if it's investigating a crime? What makes that special, different circumstance?

I must say again, if you can explain this it will provide me with great insight.

I already explained the main difference in my initial post, where I said: following whatever investigation has taken place, the police will later release the remains or property to whomever is the rightful claimant. So the main difference is the length of time; a temporary seizing of property/human remains (in the case of a crime investigation), or a permanent sezing (in the case of inheritence tax).

(There's also the secondary issue of not being allowed to profit from crimes. Even though its only an investigation, it may be necessary to temporarily seize materials until the person has been found to be innocent.)

The emphasis on temporariness is misguided and fails to address fundamentals. Suppose I revise my tax so that only liquid assets are seized. The government reinvests that revenue and promises to pay you back (with interest); that is, make you "whole" again.

Why is the temporariness misguided? Even though someone may miss out on potential income from assets seized in a crime investigation, they are still going to get the principle back eventually. Not so in the case of an inheritance tax.

And I really don't know where you're going with your whole 'government will reinvest and pay you back' argument.

A libertarian would still disagree because her property has been taken without consent. "It's NOT okay if you'll pay me back later because I never agreed in the first place!"

I can't speak for the libertarians, but I rather suspect they would have no problem with property being seized if its done as part of a crime investigation.

Notice that an autospy presents eve more serious difficulties, especially if the person is religious. Desecration is not reversible, and it violates one's most cherished and sacred beliefs.

I agree that in some cases, performing an autopsy does lead to conflicts between religious beliefs and government actions. But in the case of a murder investigation, such respect for religious beliefs must be weighed against the person's right to life.

There are two answers, a long one and short one. I'll give you the short one as it applies to the estate tax (even though I have reservations): yes, life insurance is fine, within limits. Just as I have no problem with the vast majority of estates, for the purpose of argument. The tax only applies to agreeably high transfers (pick a number, 10 million, 50 million, 100 million, it doesn't matter).

1 million in insurance is certainly not unreasonable. In fact, even $10 million is not totally out of the question.

Are you going to put a cap on all insurance claims?

 

[Cain]

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

I already explained the main difference in my initial post, where I said: following whatever investigation has taken place, the police will later release the remains or property to whomever is the rightful claimant. So the main difference is the length of time; a temporary seizing of property/human remains (in the case of a crime investigation), or a permanent sezing (in the case of inheritence tax).

Then you're misunderstanding natural-rights based libertarianism. The duration should make no difference because property is still seized without consent.

Suppose you live next to the police station and you have a basketaball court in your backyard. Can the police waltz on to your property (with their own ball) and begin shooting hoops in their spare time? Since you're away during the day they're not even depriving you of access to your court. Most people, non-libertarians included, would say "no" because recreation is not a compelling enough reason to over-ride private property.

(There's also the secondary issue of not being allowed to profit from crimes. Even though its only an investigation, it may be necessary to temporarily seize materials until the person has been found to be innocent.)

Which person are you talking about? Are you suggesting the heir may have murdered for profit?

Why is the temporariness misguided?

Because it's still taken without consent (i.e. violates the non-initiation of force principle).

Even though someone may miss out on potential income from assets seized in a crime investigation, they are still going to get the principle back eventually. Not so in the case of an inheritance tax.

And I really don't know where you're going with your whole 'government will reinvest and pay you back' argument.

I am suggesting that the government seizes a person's cash, their gold bars, liquid assets, and promises to pay back the heirs (with interest). A natural rights libertarian would find this a violation of liberty as she never consented to such an exchange.

I can't speak for the libertarians, but I rather suspect they would have no problem with property being seized if its done as part of a crime investigation.

I agree that in some cases, performing an autopsy does lead to conflicts between religious beliefs and government actions. But in the case of a murder investigation, such respect for religious beliefs must be weighed against the person's right to life.

Which person's right to life? The prospects that a killer at large may strike again? Okay, since we have the scales out already it's possible to weigh unearned inheritence and aristocratic society against one that values fairness, equal opportunity, meritocracy, and rewards effort and sacrifice. Right?

1 million in insurance is certainly not unreasonable. In fact, even $10 million is not totally out of the question.

Are you going to put a cap on all insurance claims?

Like I said, I'll consider no differently (to remain consistent with the arguments herein) than the estate tax.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

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?

This is a bit of a non-argument. You could say this about any taxation of private corporations. Perhaps, then, we should not tax any private companies to avoid the chance of putting people out of work?

 

[WildCat]

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

I think this might go a long way towards explaining Buffet's interest in this matter. Buffet didn't make his $$ by inventing a useful product, or manufacturing something, or coming up w/ a clever idea useful to someone in the market. He made his $$ by buying stock he considered undervalued.

Now, suppose Mr. X starts up a company, it goes public (w/ Mr. X maintaining a controlling interest). Mr. X dies and leaves his share to his heirs. Now, the heirs have to sell a % of their stock to pay the taxes, and now Warren Buffet can buy up the huge stock sale flooding the market at discount prices! Ain't inheritance taxes wonderful?

That's just my crackpot theory, but in all seriousness I'd bet that Buffet's heirs have an inheritance protected from taxation through every estate planning trick in the book.

 

[UserGoogol]

Yes, he has, because he is inheriting less than he would have because of the tax. Especially when you consider all the years of compound interest.

Inheritance is not a guaranteed right. Isn't it one of those positive rights that Libertarians never seem too keen on? The right to recieve the money of dead people is in no way a natural right, and the right to posthumously give money doesn't make sense, because dead people need no rights.

I'm not saying that inheritance can't exist. Groups of people can certainly collaborate together to form some sort of system where inheritance is ensured. But it's not a right. And the Grand Collaborator, the Government, will certainly have some say in it.

Oh? How are you going to collect this tax without the use of force? Suppose my progeny just refuses to pay it? What are you going to do?

Your progeny never gets the money to begin with. The government takes it directly from the dead person, you, which requires a very small amount of force.

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.

Hmm. Didn't think of that. Yeah, that helps your case a lot. The question, of course, is of the nature of inheritance itself. What happens to property when its owner dies? Does it pass into the ether, to be distributed as society decides, (through the government) or does in remain under "his" control despite his lack of all need for it?

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.)

Murder's different because the person's alive when the crime is committed. And as for corpse-desecration... I don't think necrophilia breaks anyone's rights. Rather, I think it bugs people enough so that they collaboratively come together to punish all those who commit it. The public may also collaboratively decide what to do with the dead guy's financial remains. Maybe they'll go down the road of their stance on corpse desecration and say, "Let the money go to whoever the guy wanted it to go to," or maybe they'll say, "Let's take the money and split it up on stuff for ourselves."

Since the more-or-less official collaborative voice of "The Public" is the government, (at least in democracies) it seems fine for the government to take money from dead people if they see fit.

 

[shanek]

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?

No. Libertarians are all about goodwill. That's why we do so much charity work. But taking someone's money at gunpoint, no matter how rich they are, to give to someone, no matter how needy they are, is not goodwill.

 

[Scorpy]

Instead I think libertarians appeal to an alternative set of values, one that claims (nearly) absolute property rights take precedence over a system that is more inclined to compensate an individual's natural capabilities.

The value of those "natural capabilities" has to be determined by someone. Why not the property owner?

 

[shanek]

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

No, it inolves taking property for a social end.

No, it doesn't. It involves the temporary use of property for purposes of conducting an investigation. After the investigation is all over, the property is returned. The fact that you refuse to see the difference just shows how pigheaded you're being.

Now it's with more than a fair amount of irony that you will demand that I answer your questions (for the second, third, and fourth times) while completely pussyfooting around mine.

I directly responded to yours. Stop your f*cking whining.

Thank you! Thank you for finally admitting, probably unwittingly that it doesn't even matter whether or not the wealth is earned

Says the man who doesn't use strawmen.

The wealth IS earned, and the person who EARNED it gets to say what happens to it. YOU don't.

You are comically asinine.

Says the man who doesn't use ad hominems.

Whether or not the Internet would be "NOTHING" without the "PRIVATE SECTOR" ignores the critical role played by the public sector.

And what critical role was that? Other than getting out of the way, I mean.

The second paragraph is just hilarious. Is your website designed for the blind or illiterate?

ALL of the websites I design are designed for the blind/illiterate to use text-to-speech programs, as is ANY webpage that follows W3C standards.

I mean, you do realize there are necessary social investments to even create that technology, right?

I realize the amount of PRIVATE investment into technology developed PRIVATELY to make that come about.

[snip, snip, snip, snip]

What was snipped, BTW, was me explaining how his example of "social" creation of wealth was really created by groups of individuals, why what he is proposing affects me directly, why we need to consider the human element when dealing with the issue of murder (thereby taking another of his excuses away), and how taxes are ALWAYS expanded beyond what they originally are set up to be. Amazing how Cain doesn't want to respond to these points...

Shanek- you're dumb.

Says the man who doesn't use ad hominems.

I made it clear that our circumstances were identical,

Except that, as I pointed out, they aren't.

Force is force and that's somehow automatically bad.

Says the man who doesn't use strawmen. You know perfectly well about the Libertarian concept of the non-INITIATION of force. INITIATION of force is bad. Force in defense is quite cool, as is force used by the court systems to instill justice. This has been explained to you so many times it's ridiculous of you to keep spewing out your lies.

Robert Nozick, the most brilliant and influential libertarian, finally agreed that an estate tax is justifiable.

Says the man who doesn't use appeal to authority.

 

[shanek]

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

I can't speak for the libertarians, but I rather suspect they would have no problem with property being seized if its done as part of a crime investigation.

Well, it depends, really. We have a BIG problem, for example, with "asset forfeiture," whereby your house or your car is charged with a crime (and, since they're not humans, don't have a right to a trial and things like that) and not you and they just get taken from you permanently.

 

[shanek]

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

Then you're misunderstanding natural-rights based libertarianism.

Ha! You don't understand libertarianism when someone shouts it to you at the top of your lungs! If you did, you would know about the non-initiation of force principle and how it applies here.

Because it's still taken without consent (i.e. violates the non-initiation of force principle).

You say the words, but you don't understand the concept. It's not an INITIATION of force because they are RESPONDING to force (i.e., the crime that was committed).

 

[shanek]

I think this might go a long way towards explaining Buffet's interest in this matter. Buffet didn't make his $$ by inventing a useful product, or manufacturing something, or coming up w/ a clever idea useful to someone in the market. He made his $$ by buying stock he considered undervalued.

And, in doing so, he contributed greatly to the creation of wealth because his investment provided the company with capital that it used to bring its true value into fruition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to imply that he just made a whole bunch of money without really contributing anything, and that just isn't the case.

 

[shanek]

Inheritance is not a guaranteed right. Isn't it one of those positive rights that Libertarians never seem too keen on? The right to recieve the money of dead people is in no way a natural right, and the right to posthumously give money doesn't make sense, because dead people need no rights.

Really? So where do you think all of this would naturally go if no one intervened in the process?

Your progeny never gets the money to begin with.

What stops them?

The government takes it

Ah, yes, the government takes it, hence the government must intervene, hence the government must use force.

[qoute]Hmm. Didn't think of that. Yeah, that helps your case a lot. The question, of course, is of the nature of inheritance itself. What happens to property when its owner dies? Does it pass into the ether, to be distributed as society decides, (through the government)[/quote]

Again the parenthetical with the government. You need the government to do this, because you need to apply FORCE to make it happen. Government is force. Its application is force. Everything the government does is backed up by the force of men with guns. If it's something that happens naturally, you don't need the government to make it happen; you just need the government to stop other people from trying to stop it happening. THAT'S the nature of natural rights.

I don't think necrophilia breaks anyone's rights.

You think a widow is unaffected by someone having sex with her husband's corpse?

Since the more-or-less official collaborative voice of "The Public" is the government, (at least in democracies) it seems fine for the government to take money from dead people if they see fit.

Well, again, I must point out that we don't live in a democracy (which can be every bit as tyrannical as a dictatorship), but a Constitutional Republic. And the Constitution DOES NOT give the government the authority to do this.

 

[WildCat]

And, in doing so, he contributed greatly to the creation of wealth because his investment provided the company with capital that it used to bring its true value into fruition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to imply that he just made a whole bunch of money without really contributing anything, and that just isn't the case.

That part of my post was sarcasm, that's what the was for. But I've heard it said by some that people who merely invest (except in an IPO) do nothing for the company and manufacture no wealth. I don't believe that for a variety of reasons, but I say it to show Buffet isn't w/o critics himself.

But I do believe the second part of my post, that I'd bet he made sure his wife, ex-wife and kids were taken care of through every inheritance-tax avoidance scheme in the book and that his current stance is somewhat hypocritical. But as I am not privy to his personal information, we'll just have to wait until he dies to find out.

I do know this about Buffet - that his stake in his investment company was worth $150 million at one time, and his only income was a $50,000 salary he paid himself. So here's someone worth $150 million, who probably paid very little if any income tax (since he could easily have mortgage interest exceeding his income tax burden). So I take his stance on taxes w/ a grain of salt. He does seem to have an ego that needs stroking occasionally.

 

[UserGoogol]

You think a widow is unaffected by someone having sex with her husband's corpse?

Oh, she's extraordinarily effected. But I'm not sure if people have a "right" to not be horribly traumatized.

No wait, of course they do. But whatever, it's completely irrelevant to the main argument.

Really? So where do you think all of this would naturally go if no one intervened in the process?

If no one intervened? The money would go to whoever managed to get their hands on the dead guy's money first... maybe his bank.

Again the parenthetical with the government. You need the government to do this, because you need to apply FORCE to make it happen. Government is force. Its application is force. Everything the government does is backed up by the force of men with guns. If it's something that happens naturally, you don't need the government to make it happen; you just need the government to stop other people from trying to stop it happening. THAT'S the nature of natural rights.

It requires no guns to take money from a dead person. Guns don't do much to dead people. Rather, guns are only used to make sure nobody else takes the property. But they have no right to the money either.

 

[Cain]

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

Originally posted by shanek No, it doesn't. It involves the temporary use of property for purposes of conducting an investigation. After the investigation is all over, the property is returned. The fact that you refuse to see the difference just shows how pigheaded you're being.

Coupled with:

You say the words, but you don't understand the concept. It's not an INITIATION of force because they are RESPONDING to force (i.e., the crime that was committed.

Oh boy. Shanek- Person A initiates force against person B. Why should C's circumstances be worsened without his consent?

Fill in the blanks: In the case the police are responding to what they suspect might be an initiation of force. Further assume there's no reason to suspect any wrong-doing on the person who now "owns" the body.

The government is seizes the property without consent. Now nearly all people agree the state is not violating anyone's rights given these circumstances. Simple question: Why?

Says the man who doesn't use strawmen.

The wealth IS earned, and the person who EARNED it gets to say what happens to it. YOU don't.

Uh oh, one step forward and two steps back. The heirs -- the heirs -- did not earn the estate. Historically, that is to say if you're actually interested in the real world, a great deal of land passed down through generations is unearned. Trace it back far enough and you'll find someone stole it (fair and square, of course).

Says the man who doesn't use ad hominems.

Oh, please. Somewhere in my opening two posts you claimed, in your first of many non-replies, that I resorted to both ad hominem and appeals to authority. I asked you some three times to identify these remarks, and of course you never did. Instead you kept calling me "selfish," which still merits a chuckle.

And what critical role was that? Other than getting out of the way, I mean.

The Internet originated in the public sector. Public investments invigorate the market system (see MRI, weather forecasting technology, or the GI Bill).

ALL of the websites I design are designed for the blind/illiterate to use text-to-speech programs, as is ANY webpage that follows W3C standards.

I want to take back my foolish comment earlier about your website. Who but the blind and illiterate would you appeal?

[snip]

What was snipped, BTW, was me explaining how his example of "social" creation of wealth was really created by groups of individuals, why what he is proposing affects me directly, why we need to consider the human element when dealing with the issue of murder (thereby taking another of his excuses away), and how taxes are ALWAYS expanded beyond what they originally are set up to be. Amazing how Cain doesn't want to respond to these points...

Every comment "snipped" is taken in sequential order by paragraph for your benefit. It's hilarious you would suggest I have evaded anything given the nature of your comments.

[snip]

Re: scenario involving two people stranded on a desert island

Except that, as I pointed out, they aren't.

Geez. No, you made several obtuse comments, like saying that the person stranded by accident can use his intelligence and the island's native resources to leave (while the other cannot). That's incorrect. The circumstances are identical -- two people stranded on the same island. The origins of those circumstances, which I have made cyrstal clear on two occasions, are different. But you'll never understand.

Says the man who doesn't use strawmen. You know perfectly well about the Libertarian concept of the non-INITIATION of force. INITIATION of force is bad. Force in defense is quite cool, as is force used by the court systems to instill justice. This has been explained to you so many times it's ridiculous of you to keep spewing out your lies.

Yes, my lies. Once again, "Justice" is a disputed, open-ended concept, and I apologize for breaking the sad news that your dictionary is not a final authority.

Says the man who doesn't use appeal to authority.

It's not intended as an appeal to authority. Nozick, who near the end could no longer consider himself a libertarian, found the idea unearned inheritences enough to abandon the monicker. He did so for good reasons, some of which are provided above.

From the next post:

Ha! You don't understand libertarianism when someone shouts it to you at the top of your lungs! If you did, you would know about the non-initiation of force principle and how it applies here.

Shanek, you're a funny guy, and you're understanding of libertarianism's philosophical underpinnings is about as deep as a puddle.

Like when Victor distinguishes consequentialist-utilitarian libertarianism from unempirical natural rights libertarianism.

Only you are empty-headed enough to quickly declare "I'm both." Gold.

For your personal education the "non-initiation of force principle" is really a matter of consent. When two boxers enter a ring ready to fight, the one who strikes first has not "initiated force" in a normatively meaningful sense. Prior to the even each fighter consented to the rules of the sport.

P.S. Calling you dumb isa conclusion instead of an ad hominem. If your arguments ever possessed an inkling of merit I would revise that (well-supported) opinion.

 

[shanek]

Oh, she's extraordinarily effected. But I'm not sure if people have a "right" to not be horribly traumatized.

No wait, of course they do. But whatever, it's completely irrelevant to the main argument.

Uh, why is it irrelevant?

If no one intervened? The money would go to whoever managed to get their hands on the dead guy's money first... maybe his bank.

Nooooo, it would be passed on to his progeny, just as it has been pretty much since the beginning of civilization, with or without governments.

It requires no guns to take money from a dead person.

It does to take them from his progeny.

But they have no right to the money either.

So who does have a right to the money, and why?

 

[shanek]

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

The government is seizes the property without consent. Now nearly all people agree the state is not violating anyone's rights given these circumstances. Simple question: Why?

Asked and answered. And you know it, too.

Uh oh, one step forward and two steps back. The heirs -- the heirs -- did not earn the estate.

Again, are you honestly saying they did NOTHING with or on the estate while they were alive?

Besides, even if I were to grant you this, do you still not see the absurdity in claiming, "They did not earn the estate, so we have to take it by force and give it to other people who didn't earn it!"?

The Internet originated in the public sector.

No, it didn't. ARPAnet originated in the public sector. ARPAnet was NOT the Internet.

Public investments invigorate the market system (see MRI, weather forecasting technology, or the GI Bill).

You picked three investments that were arguably either collossal failures or hugely expensive boondoggles and pretend that these "invigorated" the market system? To laugh!

I want to take back my foolish comment earlier about your website. Who but the blind and illiterate would you appeal?

Says the man who doesn't make ad hominems, and has now made a bigoted remark against blind people to boot.

Way to avoid having to admit that you've just been shown to be WRONG, BTW.

[snip]

Again, what was snipped here was me pointing out how the investments Cain was talking about were PRIVATE investments. What is he so afraid of?

Geez. No, you made several obtuse comments,

No, I didn't. I stated clearly and directly how the two scenarios were different, and you refuse to even acknowledge it, writing off my distinction as irrelevant without comment.

Yes, my lies. Once again, "Justice" is a disputed, open-ended concept, and I apologize for breaking the sad news that your dictionary is not a final authority.

HOW F*CKING DISHONEST CAN YOU GET???? You know PERFECTLY WELL you were talking about what Libertarians claim! The definition used by Libertartians is VERY relevant here! You're just LYING again to support your strawman. Pathetic.

It's not intended as an appeal to authority.

Yes, it was, and that's ALL it was.

Shanek, you're a funny guy, and you're understanding of libertarianism's philosophical underpinnings is about as deep as a puddle.

Uh-huh, I, a prominent Libertarian in my home state (candidate, delegate to the national convention, and Presidential elector), have no understanding of liberarianism, and you, a proven LIAR and BIGOT against anyone who disagrees with you, understands it perfectly even though your understanding is at odds with practically everything Libertarians have written.

Go the f*ck away. You are worthless.

Only you are empty-headed enough to quickly declare "I'm both." Gold.

I explained why, and my position was eminently defensible. Neither you nor Victor had any rebuttal for it, just your assertion that I somehow couldn't be both at the same time.

P.S. Calling you dumb isa conclusion instead of an ad hominem.

No, it's an ad hominem. And everyone here know it. You have NO credibility here.

 

[Reager]

I've been following this thread with interest and, I must admit, some amusement. Although, I don't claim to be an expert in natural rights theory, etc...and there are a couple of points that have been brought up that I don't fully understand the justification for (haven't heard any yet). Perhaps someone would help, it'd be much appreciated:

1. I do not understand how the rights (any rights) of an individual can naturally extend beyond that individuals death. What is the justification for claiming that the dead have any innate, natural rights that must be recognized? Or, put another way, why do the "natural rights" of the living extend beyond the grave? And if they do, how far beyond the grave? 10 years? 1000? 10,000? It seems to me absurd that the dead can have any "rights" at all, save those that are granted by the living.

2. Several people have criticized the estate tax because it is "double taxation." It seems that this view assumes that the "money" itself is being taxed. However, the government does not tax "money" or "property," it taxes people. So of COURSE there will be multiple taxation. Otherwise, any form of meaningful taxation becomes unworkable. (For example, X pays income tax on his $10,000 salary. He then passes on that 10k to others by purchasing items or giving it away, and those others pass their portion of that money to others. If there was no "multiple taxation" then that $10,000 could never be subject to taxation again, as income to another person or otherwise). Am I missing something? If multiple taxation is the problem, then why is multiple taxation better when it is income from an employer that is being taxed, and not a gift from a dead relative?

Mike

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I've been following this thread with interest and, I must admit, some amusement. Although, I don't claim to be an expert in natural rights theory, etc...and there are a couple of points that have been brought up that I don't fully understand the justification for (haven't heard any yet). Perhaps someone would help, it'd be much appreciated:

1. I do not understand how the rights (any rights) of an individual can naturally extend beyond that individuals death. What is the justification for claiming that the dead have any innate, natural rights that must be recognized? Or, put another way, why do the "natural rights" of the living extend beyond the grave? And if they do, how far beyond the grave? 10 years? 1000? 10,000? It seems to me absurd that the dead can have any "rights" at all, save those that are granted by the living.

2. Several people have criticized the estate tax because it is "double taxation." It seems that this view assumes that the "money" itself is being taxed. However, the government does not tax "money" or "property," it taxes people. So of COURSE there will be multiple taxation. Otherwise, any form of meaningful taxation becomes unworkable. (For example, X pays income tax on his $10,000 salary. He then passes on that 10k to others by purchasing items or giving it away, and those others pass their portion of that money to others. If there was no "multiple taxation" then that $10,000 could never be subject to taxation again, as income to another person or otherwise). Am I missing something? If multiple taxation is the problem, then why is multiple taxation better when it is income from an employer that is being taxed, and not a gift from a dead relative?

Mike

Don't forget, "If the estate tax is unconsititutional because it amounts to seizure of property without due course to law, why isn't any tax unconstitutional?"