Dynastic succession to power under law, to classic privilege (private
law is the root as I recall) is undemocratic. There is nothing
undemocratic about allowing a holder of wealth to give that wealth to
the party of their choice, be it their children, a homeless shelter,
the SDS, the NAACP, or the local PBA. It is theirs to dispense.
How is it bad for society to allow any individual to prosper as a
result of their efforts, and to share that prosperity with their
children? Building a better life for oneself, and passing that on to
their children, has been a prime motivator of human society from the
earliest recorded time, and probably before that.
Is it your preference that on death all assets revert to the state?
On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
In what way is a parent giving assets to a child undemocratic? Has
any parent been denied the same opportunity, equal before the law?
It
makes no sense that an individual is free to give their money away,
so
long as they don't give it to their kin. I really do not understand
the principles and assumptions that are at the root of your
statements.
Dynastic succession is fundamentally undemocratic. It is bad for
society
to let a small portion of the populace accumulate excessive wealth.
It is
even more undemocratic and unhealthy when that wealth is not earned.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
