Libertarianism and Inheritance

[Tony]

And snide comments are much easier to post than explanations and arguments justifying your position...

LMAO...and dodges are easier than answering tough questions.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Now, go back a bit in history, and fill in the blank with slavery, or more recently, segregation. Do you want to stick with that answer?

Very powerful arguments were provided to reverse slavery and segregation. Reformers did not use the argument, 'prove it works!'

Just as it is reasonable, when debating with those who support the status quo, to expect them to support their position. Relying on "that's the way things are" is lazy, and suggests that those doing so don't have much else.

Well, he and I have done just that- in fact, you'll find that Cain has done so in his opening post. Shane, however, simply wants the system changed without providing any real reason why it should be changed. Instead, he wants some kind of comprehensive, Monomanical-Loon-Standard proof that the system is working.

Actually, didn't Shane provide reasons why the system should not stay in place?

I only remember him saying, "IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!" That doesn't qualify as an argument. It would hardly have swayed anyone considering the issues of slavery and segregation.

Can you explain how your response is justified by the comments you seemed to be responding to?

You're new here, so you aren't aware of shane's tactic of continually ignoring other peoples' points and reasserting his own until he wins through sheer stamina.

 

[Reager]

LMAO...and dodges are easier than answering tough questions.

Excuse me? I didn't respond to the comment about where the government gets a "right" to tax because it was a different issue entirely and not a response to my post. Why aren't you getting down on DoubleStreamer for dodging MY "tough question?" Sheesh.

Mike

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
If you have this much trouble understanding how someone has a right to determine where their property goes after their death, trying to figure out how the government has a "right" to take it must be a real bitch too, huh?

Originally posted by mfeldman
And snide comments are much easier to post than explanations and arguments justifying your position...

If anything I've posted is unclear, please identify it, and I'll be happy to post whatever explanations and arguments are necessary.

Besides, there really was a point to my question. Sorry if you missed it, but it is certainly reasonable to respond to someone raising so many questions about rights, by also raising the question of what gives the government any rights as it relates to the issue. Thoughts?

Excuse me? I didn't respond to the comment about where the government gets a "right" to tax because it was a different issue entirely and not a response to my post.

Wrong. It was directly related to your post, as I just explained. If the government weren't taxing estates, there would be no inheritance tax in the first place. And if you're going to raise questions about the right not to have something done to you, it's perfectly legit to respond by asking what the right is of those doing it in the first place.

Why aren't you getting down on DoubleStreamer for dodging MY "tough question?" Sheesh.

What "tough question" are you talking about?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Very powerful arguments were provided to reverse slavery and segregation.

Yes, and there was probably no shortage of people hindering that progress, by insisting that those arguments were not powerful enough to change the status quo.

Reformers did not use the argument, 'prove it works!'

And that's not the only one that's been used here, either.

Just as it is reasonable, when debating with those who support the status quo, to expect them to support their position. Relying on "that's the way things are" is lazy, and suggests that those doing so don't have much else.

Well, he and I have done just that- in fact, you'll find that Cain has done so in his opening post.

Not if what you're talking about is justifying inheritance tax. If you disagree, then please cite what you consider to be the most powerful argument either of you has presented, and I might be able to tell you why it isn't all that you think it is.

Shane, however, simply wants the system changed without providing any real reason why it should be changed.

Did you miss his comments about the Constitution? Or the thing about whether it's the government's business?

Instead, he wants some kind of comprehensive, Monomanical-Loon-Standard proof that the system is working.

I saw no such commentary in his posts. Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

I only remember him saying, "IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!" That doesn't qualify as an argument.

Why not?

It would hardly have swayed anyone considering the issues of slavery and segregation.

How do you know?

Besides, the effectiveness of something as an argument in one issue has no bearing on its validity as an argument in another.

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:


Can you explain how your response is justified by the comments you seemed to be responding to?



You're new here, so you aren't aware of shane's tactic of continually ignoring other peoples' points and reasserting his own until he wins through sheer stamina.

Actually, I'm not that new. I've just returned recently with a new handle, after an extended absence. And this doesn't address what I was talking about anyway, which was why you responded to those particular comments the way you did.

 

[shanek]

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?"

Because Article I of the Constitution gives the government the power to collect indirect taxes such as tariffs and excises. The 16th Amendment allows the government to collect an Income Tax. Income Tax is an abomination, but it's (unfortunately) a completely constitutional abomination.

 

[shanek]

So under your understanding/form of Libertarism there is some obligation on an owner of a company to not make people unemployed?

Where did I say anything of the kind?

 

[shanek]

2) If "what is mine is mine" I don't understand how my heirs have any "rights" on what was my property.

Then who does?

 

[shanek]

But why should it pass to their heirs?

Because a) that's largely the reason they were working and saving and acquiring in the first place, b) they SAID that's what they wanted to happen with a will and it's their stuff so it's their choice, c) the heirs have likely been living and working with the assets as well their whole lives, and d) because making it any other way would require an initiation of force.

If the parent had wanted to they could have given everything to the child before they died.

That makes no sense; then the parent would have nothing! Besides, it's not like parents always know when they're going to die. Besides, the act of making a will is a form of giving; it's just setting an event (the death of the parent) as the time the giving takes place.

Since they didn't the property now belongs to no one so what is wrong with the state getting the property and using it to offset government expenses?

"Offset government expenses"? More like "finance political boondoggles..."

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheri

How is it a double tax? The person receiving the property (income) didn't pay tax on it.

You honestly don't think the government is going to charge them property taxes once they have it?

I don't see any logical reason why inheritance "income" should be treated differently from other forms of income.

Nor do I. The difference is, I don't see how ANY taking of income is justified.

 

[shanek]

But I don't see how libertarianism principles are compatible with wills.

How are they not? I have something, it's mine, I get to say what happens to it. So if I say that it goes to my children when I die, or goes to charity, or whatever, then that's what happens.

 

[Reager]

If anything I've posted is unclear, please identify it, and I'll be happy to post whatever explanations and arguments are necessary.

Besides, there really was a point to my question. Sorry if you missed it, but it is certainly reasonable to respond to someone raising so many questions about rights, by also raising the question of what gives the government any rights as it relates to the issue. Thoughts?

Sure you can raise the question, but it still does not address the issues in MY question. I asked, basically, do the DEAD have "natural" rights? Or, why do the rights of a living person extend after their death? And if they do, how long after their death? To what extent? Why do the wishes of dead control the living?

Wrong. It was directly related to your post, as I just explained. If the government weren't taxing estates, there would be no inheritance tax in the first place. And if you're going to raise questions about the right not to have something done to you, it's perfectly legit to respond by asking what the right is of those doing it in the first place.

All I'm trying to do is figure out where the dead get any "rights" from. The answer to that question has nothing to do with where the government would get a right to collect taxes.

Mike

 

[shanek]

Well, that's not anarchy by any definition of the word;

There are three definitions of anarchy in the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Absence of any form of political authority." The Constitution is the political authority over Congress. If Congress is ignoring the Constitution, then there is no political authority over them.

"Political disorder and confusion." Look at C-SPAN and follow any given bill from introduction to passing and then tell me that isn't what we have now.

"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose." The Constitution is that principle; when they ignore that, then it is effectively absent.

Seems to me it fits EVERY definition of the word!

I don't really understand your objection here;

What I'm saying is, in the absence of the rule of law all such debates are moot since no matter what you pass it won't be followed. Restore the rule of law first, then we can go about fixing things.

He has done; it's all there in his original post.

I have asked him several questions that he refuses to answer and made several points he continues to ignore. He also continues to lie about libertarians, make strawman arguments, and make ad hominem attacks.

It's dispassionate because of the tone;

No, it's just hidden. His meaning was plain, and it's in the meaning where it all lies.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertari

I'm sorry this makes no sense to me. What is the justification for this "dividing line" you speak of? Why should "earned" income be treated any differently than "unearned" income.

And who decides what income is earned and unearned? I'm sure a good parent with good children would consider that they earned their inheritance.

 

[shanek]

Very powerful arguments were provided to reverse slavery and segregation. Reformers did not use the argument, 'prove it works!'

Actually, it's the fact that slavery for the most part doesn't work that led to slaves all over the world being freed.

Shane, however, simply wants the system changed

No, I don't. The system, as it is defined now by the US Constitution, does not permit takings. I want the rule of law restored and the system to work as it is defined.

I only remember him saying, "IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!"

You only remember what you want, apparently. Besides, no one ever fully responded to that. But you just ignore me quoting the Constitution and showing how it does NOT permit this.

 

[shanek]

Sure you can raise the question, but it still does not address the issues in MY question. I asked, basically, do the DEAD have "natural" rights? Or, why do the rights of a living person extend after their death? And if they do, how long after their death? To what extent? Why do the wishes of dead control the living?

All I'm trying to do is figure out where the dead get any "rights" from. The answer to that question has nothing to do with where the government would get a right to collect taxes.

Let's say that I make a will stating that when I die my assets will be transferred to a probate firm who will be allowed to liquidate a specified portion for compensation, then hold the rest for ten years gaining compound interest, at which point it is to be divided and given to a list of charities. Are you saying that at any point after I die the government can come in with guns and take all of the stuff I hired them to hold?

 

[Reager]

Let's say that I make a will stating that when I die my assets will be transferred to a probate firm who will be allowed to liquidate a specified portion for compensation, then hold the rest for ten years gaining compound interest, at which point it is to be divided and given to a list of charities. Are you saying that at any point after I die the government can come in with guns and take all of the stuff I hired them to hold?

No, I'm not saying that.

Here, again, is what I asked:

Do the DEAD have "natural" rights?

Do the rights of a living person extend after their death?

If so, how long after their death? And to what extent?

I am trying to pin down the nature of any "rights" that the dead may have, whether they are "natural" or granted by "society/government/living people" (for lack of a better term).

Mike

 

[Thanz]

Sure you can raise the question, but it still does not address the issues in MY question. I asked, basically, do the DEAD have "natural" rights? Or, why do the rights of a living person extend after their death? And if they do, how long after their death? To what extent? Why do the wishes of dead control the living?

Your phrasing is somewhat inaccurate. It is not the "wishes of the dead" that are recorded in a will. It is the wishes of a living person disposing of his/her estate upon the moment of death. Dead people don't make wills. When alive, people deal with their property as they see fit. What happens when they die? Well, in the absence of a will, there are rules as to who gets what in an intestacy. In effect, when you die your heirs get the rights to your property. A will is only there to alter what the intestacy rules say.

To think about it another way, in life your heirs have a contingent interest in what you own. When you die, the contingency is removed and the interest materializes.

I don't see any logical reason why inheritance "income" should be treated differently from other forms of income.

Other kinds of income are the result of economic activity, and the government is taxing that economic activity. If income is not the result of economic activity, it should be taxed as such (like finding $20.00 in the street).

Inheriting an estate is not an economic activity and should not be taxed as income.

That doesn't mean that the government can't impose an estate tax. However, it is not an income tax - it is a wealth tax. It has much more in common with property taxes than income taxes.

 

[Reager]

Your phrasing is somewhat inaccurate. It is not the "wishes of the dead" that are recorded in a will. It is the wishes of a living person disposing of his/her estate upon the moment of death. Dead people don't make wills. When alive, people deal with their property as they see fit. What happens when they die? Well, in the absence of a will, there are rules as to who gets what in an intestacy. In effect, when you die your heirs get the rights to your property. A will is only there to alter what the intestacy rules say.

To think about it another way, in life your heirs have a contingent interest in what you own. When you die, the contingency is removed and the interest materializes.

Thanks for the clarification (let's just say future interests was never my favorite subject )

But that goes right along with my point, intestacy statutes are not codifications of "natural" rights. They may be altered as we see fit. Instead of intestate property going to a spouse or children first, we could change the law so it goes to the fourth cousin twice removed first. We also put limits on how a person may dispose of his property by will (rule against perpetuities anyone?). But what basis the natural rights proponent have for saying that a person has the right to control property after they are DEAD? Do the dead have rights? So the rights of the living person extend after death? Why? For how long? Or is it the right of those with an interest of the estate we are concerned about?

Other kinds of income are the result of economic activity, and the government is taxing that economic activity. If income is not the result of economic activity, it should be taxed as such (like finding $20.00 in the street).

Inheriting an estate is not an economic activity and should not be taxed as income.

That doesn't mean that the government can't impose an estate tax. However, it is not an income tax - it is a wealth tax. It has much more in common with property taxes than income taxes.

True, I hadn't thought of that. But my basic question to those claiming "double taxation" remains: Since *people* are taxed, where is "double" taxation when *Bob* is taxed on his income of $20 and *Bob Jr.* is taxed on his inheritence of $20 (even if it is the same $20).

Mike

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Sure you can raise the question, but it still does not address the issues in MY question.

Well, you didn't actually ask it of me before, but I'll give it a shot.

I asked, basically, do the DEAD have "natural" rights?

Not as far as I know. The living have a right to have legally binding agreements they entered into while alive be honored after their death.

Or, why do the rights of a living person extend after their death?

It's not clear which "rights" you're talking about. If you're just referring to honoring a will or something, it probably has something to do with the obligation of anyone who agreed to distribute their estate according to their wishes, coupled with the lack of any valid claim on the property in question that would supercede that of any designated heirs.

And if they do, how long after their death?

Long enough to distribute the property in question sounds good to me.

To what extent?

To whatever extent that was specified by the deceased when they were still alive.

Why do the wishes of dead control the living?

They don't. The heirs are usually living, and if they inherit something they don't want, they are free to give it away.

All I'm trying to do is figure out where the dead get any "rights" from.

From obligations others assumed while they were still alive, if it helps you get there.

The answer to that question has nothing to do with where the government would get a right to collect taxes.

Of course it does. Once again, if you're going to raise questions about the right not to have something done to you, it's perfectly legit to respond by asking what the right is of those doing it in the first place.

Have you come up with an answer yet?