Quote:

The short answer is property rights laws are abstractions created by people in an attempt to find a fair way to share the resources of the earth.

---

Quote:

Once a human has justly acquired property (i.e. acquired it without violating the rights of other humans) it is HIS property, and he has the right to either retain it or to transfer it to other humans of his choosing

---

shroomydan said:

If it seems unfair to you because the government taxes the money twice, then tell me how it is fair that some people inherit money and land while others have to work for it. That does not seem fair to me.

---

I actually agree with you concerning the estate taxes, as a necessary means by which we ensure that all of this money doesn't collect in the hands of a few. Call it a mandatory investment in society, if you will. Think about playing Monopoly, once you have all of those hotels, there aren't any left for anyone else to purchase, and no hotels for others to profit off of in order to pay those enormous rates to stay in those hotels held by another.

Its entirely reasonable, especially considering that, the more money you have, the easier and easier it is to make more money from that money. So I'm with you on that one. Regarding inheritance itself, however, I think it is perfectly reasonable that someone can make a decision as to who to leave their property to. Why not? Until we, as a society, remove all notions of the association known as family from our society, then it only makes sense that we would allow others to inherit our goods. I agree with you that it should be taxed when it changes hands, though, once we are dealing with a certain dollar amount. That amount might be arbitrary, but the cost of someone living a billion dollar high life is quite a few people living a thousand dollar lifestyle, and I don't see why, from the viewpoint of society as a whole (we aren't just individuals), such a wide disparity should be allowed.

Phred said:

Does a human -- once born -- have the right to attempt to further his existence? That is to say, to attempt to keep living?

---

Quote:

If you answer affirmatively, it necessarily means you agree he has the right to attempt to acquire and to keep that which he requires to further his existence (otherwise known as property).

---

Quote:

Further, it necessarily follows that he has the right to defend that property from other humans attempting to seize it from him.

---

Quote:

This defense of his property is literally a necessary part of self-defense -- it does you no good to successfully keep some human predator from stabbing or shooting you if you allow him to strip you naked and seize everything you own. If he does that, you will die as surely as if he had sliced your carotid arteries wide open -- it will just take a little longer.

---

shroomydan said:

Don't speak to me as if I am a child. I am probably older than you.

---

Quote:

Tell me your theory on property rights, because it seems to me as if you somehow think they are absolute, which is wrong.

---

JOEBIALEK said:

Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.

"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.

---

shroomydan said:

Inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, progressive income taxes, and the like are designed to prevent wealth from accumulating in the hands of a few, who would then use that power to oppress the many.

---

Quote:

It's like an income tax; people who inherit large sums of money are required to pay taxes on the income from the inheritance. Why should people who earn their income have to pay taxes on it while folks who inherit it do not?

---

The government already taxed that money when it was earned.



Then again, I doubt you'll see it how I do -- I also am opposed to gift tax, which is just stupid, and sin tax (particularly because I live in a state with one of the highest, if not THE highest, tax rates on alcohol specifically liquor).  Two things which really do not need to be taxed, along with inheretence, but good lord don't say it too loud or else you hate poor people.