>You have to be a legitimate child of the social democracy to even think of
>asking if a person "deserves" what he is given by his parents or others or
>otherwise rightfully acquires, or what value he is to society.
In my opinion, this is not (just) an ethical question, it's the logic of
believing in a laissez-faire system, where human social actions are
believed to be detrimental to 'a natural order'. My point was that giving
money to ones children, conflicts just as much with such a 'natural order'
> Also, my
>parents might very well have worked for their money and your not letting
>them give them to me to me is a serious constraint of *their* freedom.
>This is even worse than imposing that the state must inherit everything
>when one dies; at least then you could possibly give it away first.
I didn't intend anything so drastically, again i just want to point out the
fact that a system without 'guidance' works when relatively more money is
in the hands of those that are relaitvely more intelligent, who will make
better decisions as to what to consume. (in view of the consumer elite
discussed a few weeks ago on this list) And point out the problem that will
arise after X generations of rich people who didn't come in to that money
themselves. What decisions will they make in what products to buy ?, and
how will THEIR decisions influence the rest of humanity ?
>You want socialized medicine and you call yourself an extropian? The FAQ
>says something about that.
On the brighter side, a large part of the stupid people would simply lose
all the money they had been given in no time anyway. Question is what
damage can they do to the system, in the time they take to lose that money ?
It all depends on how much the little social mobility such a system has,
will make up for this. I'm sure you're aware that the last few generations
aren't always 'doing a little better' anymore...
J. de Lyser
Brussels