On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:27:35 -0600, Frnak McKenney
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:26:24 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:35:49 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:

[...]

In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked.

This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed
better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right
to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness"
issue in terms of what's fair to the giver.

When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the
wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does
not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the
idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its
self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to
swing the other way.

Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't
last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of
family fortunes *do* last through generations.

Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others,
and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities
they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most
peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our
basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit.

This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about
what constitutes fairness.

Agreed. And those do vary, as seen in this thread... and those
differences seem to be the basis (if that's not too strong a word)
for much of the apparent disagreement in this thread.

Positions harden and polarize; pretty soon, no one can pick the
disagreement apart and see where the real problems are. This is
American politics ca. 2012.


If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less
agreement about your son's right.

Interesting. Assuming grin! that "American society"(*) could
come to agreement on two general principles, namely:

1) Passing along assets one acquired during one's lifetime was
"fair", and
2) Passing along _inherited_ assets was "unfair",

what mechanisms could one imagine that would effect these
principles? I can't come up with any myself, but that doesn't mean
that it couldn't be done.

I don't see any realistic mechanism that actually resolves the issue.
It looks like a natural conflict that results from incompatible
principles. One person can hold both as long as the actual conflict
doesn't rise to the surface.

The sophists, priests, and casuists specialize in dealing with these
things. I wouldn't want to spoil their fun.


Also, and perhaps as important, what would the likely consequences
be, I wonder?

Oh... and what happens to the assets that are _not_ passed along? I
think there might be strong objection to giving these to the
federal, or state, or local governments (although it would make for
interesting fluctuations in tax revenue). "Cui bono?", indeed.
grin!

That's another conflict. With our present state of government, most of
us recoil at the idea of just handing the money over to the
legislators.


Sorry for the interjection... let the carnage resume!

That was a good interjection.

--
Ed Huntress



Frank McKenney
--
The prohibition of dodgeball represents the overshooting of yet
another successful campaign against violence, the century-long
movement to prevent the abuse and neglect of children. It reminds
us of how a civilizing offensive can leave a culture with a legacy
of puzzling customs, peccadilloes, and taboos. The code of
etiquette bequeathed by this and other Rights Revolutions is
pervasive enough to have acquired a name. We call it political
correctness.
-- Steven Pinker / The Better Angels of Our Nature