Probate, Wills & the Redistribution of Wealth

7/20/2009

Two weeks back, I wrote a rather fun post called Why Do the Rich Always Foot the Bill? and it got quite a lot of comments. One I especially enjoyed was from Jeff. He made a comment about the redistribution of wealth and how rich people tend to leave their kids big piles of money. He said that this is still redistributing wealth, it's just that it's within the family rather than to the entire community. His thought has stuck with me and I've been turning it over in my head during the past two weeks. 'Cause it's true. Willing your estate to another person in the event of one's death is a redistribution of wealth. Unless you bury your fortune in the ground, someone will make off with it after you die.

So we're left with a conundrum- what is the MOST FAIR way to redistribute wealth?

On one side we have those who believe that each individual has a right to his own property and should also have the right to decide what to do with it- whether that decision is to sell it, trade it, give it, or horde it. And at the end of their life, if they choose to leave it all to a local charity or to their family, it's their prerogative and we shouldn't interfere.

If we follow this line of thinking, we should treat any decision a person makes (in regard to their own property) with the utmost respect. They're choices about what to do with their property while they are living and after they are dead are to be followed. Just as we wouldn't take their children's allowance money, we also wouldn't take their inheritance. Both of these would interfere with the property rights of the individual.

And of course, once given to another individual or organization, that property would become bound to the individual to whom it was given. We should respect the rights of that individual regarding their newly acquired property as well.

Then there are those on the other side who believe that all resources should be used for the greater good of all mankind- that no one truly owns anything, whether they worked for it or not- and that there should be institutions in place to ensure that all resources are equally distributed to all people everywhere.

Following this line of thinking, since no one truly owns property at all, anything and everything can be legally taken by an institution or individual and rationed out others as long as the institution or individual has the needs of the many in mind. This is a collectivist mindset that values the whole as greater than the sum of its parts and will champion the rights of the many over the few.

In this paradigm, no one has the right to decide what's best for himself and his property. He is under obligation to the rest of the people in his community and country.

* * *

Honestly, there can be big problems with both of these ideals and I presented them both in such an extreme form that I highly doubt anyone truly falls completely into one side or the other.

But I did so to drive home a point.

Our nation was founded on the rights of the individual, rather than the rights of the collective. There are other nations that have gone the other route and valued to collective above the individual (Russia and China come to mind). The main reason that our founders decided upon the rights of the individual is that as both individualistic and collectivist groups become institutionalized, governments that respect the rights of the individual usually end up being fairer to all people.

The core property right is the right to one's self.

Governments that respect the individual and the individual's property rights are almost always less likely to enslave the people they rule because they respect the fundamental rights of each person to their own person. Collectivist groups can rationalize almost anything as the "good of the people" which is why they can limit the amount of children a person is allowed to birth or tell someone where to work or how they can be educated. If it's for the "good of all" it often ends up being for the "good of none."

That's why I'm pro property rights- even when the rich seem to be getting away with a fortune while the rest of us scrape and save for everything in life.

Maureen Jann link

7/20/2009 08:39:43

Okay, Here's a law from the 1800s ..."if you stop for a beer in North Dakota, don't expect to get any pretzels with your beverage. It's against the law in that state to serve beer and pretzels at the same time." -Source: http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/craziest-laws-on-books.html

And to this point...Just because this nation was FOUNDED on the rights of the individual, rather than the rights of the collective, does that still mean the principle is still meaningful and effective today?

Nathan link

7/20/2009 08:57:24

That's a really good question.

And in fact, had John Stuart Mill been the primary voice in the ear of the American Revolutionaries (rather than John Locke and Thomas Hobbes) we might have a very different country- or possibly no country at all?

Mill, of course, is the guy who is credited with moving ethics into a collectivist, utilitarian centered thing, hoping to bring about "the greatest amount of good for the greatest number" rather than an individualistic version like what Hobbes and Locke were famous for. Eventually, Mills would influence a number of other philosophers- especially Marx and the social/communist philosophers that followed.

I guess I'm not totally opposed to socialism in theory. I especially like socialism when it's voluntary. But after seeing what happens when governments FORCE socialism, I'm very wary of it. It crippled the economy of Russia and China. It's devastated the healthcare systems in a number of European communities. And it continues to breed poverty in Cuba and other small countries where it's coupled with tyranny.

My fear, of course, isn't with socialism on it's own. It's with the coupling of socialism and government. Powerful Dictators and Socialism don't play nicely together and I'm afraid of what would happen if our government- the most powerful government in the world- became socialist. I don't think any of us would like it if the morality of Congress and the White House were impressed in the rest of us...

FTP Blog link

7/21/2009 04:28:18

The redistribution of wealth under individualistic or collectivist paradigms? I think I personally favor a mixture of both.
Concerning collectivism: First, we need to accept the fact that no individual is an island. Who would John Locke be without the readers that gave space to his words? Where would your blog be, Nathan, if you did not have people interested in what you offer? Even Warren Buffet depends on the competency of those who work under his umbrella, for the success he has achieved. Second, every activity the human race engages in, is always, directly or indirectly, connected to the Earth. As such, it is only of benefit for an individual to consider how his/her actions affect those around him/her, including the primary source/stage of his/her activity, the Earth.
Concerning individualism: No human is an island, but we have all been embedded with a will, with a drive to do something. Some may call this "a will to power". Others might refer to it as "a will to meaning". Whatever the case, it is apparent that the best communities are those that are able to allow the individual to pursue whatever it is that drives him/her within the context of a larger whole. In this manner, the individual satisfies his/her sovereignty while still being an intricate part of a community.
I doubt I am accurately stating what I have in mind. But, I favor a mixed paradigm because the reality of life is that, whether we like it or not, we all depend on each other. Where does Starbucks get their beans for coffee? Where does Apple manufacture most of its products? What of the US and Oil? So that, for me, there is a deeper problem. And that problem that guises itself as the distribution/redistribution of wealth is actually (and partially) one of meaning. How much do we really mean to each other? If we still have divisions based on class, race, religion and so forth, obviously there are those of us who compete with each other. And for me, competition is a terrible thing for an intelligent race of humans to involve themselves in. But there are those of us who try to compliment each other. One accessible example I can think of is Jesus. Now, I am not a Christian. But whoever that man was, I have a feeling that he could have been a ruthless general/king if he chose to. And if he did, where would Christians be today? But this is what he chose (at least according to the stories I've read): Seeing all around him, he chose to go around town to talk about charity, kindness and so forth. He understood his individuality as part of a fabric. He understood that the competition for power, for wealth and so forth only ends up creating more problems. Even though there were regions within the fabric that hated what he stood for, he knew that there would be those who could benefit from his words/actions. And sure, the Roman Empire got him killed...only to capitulate to Christianity about three hundred years later. Obviously, we can get into the debate of Christ, what he stood for, and the Church today. Yet, how many humans have benefited from the example of the Christ? Now compare that with Stalin.
Nice post!

FTP Blog link

7/21/2009 04:49:33

I just posted a comment and now I wonder where it went. Hmmmm. Well, if it doesn't appear by the end of the day, I'll just re-type it.

Jeff link

7/21/2009 05:44:07

Hey! Great discussion, post, and follow-up comments.

This may not be anything new, but I think it's valuable to look at things this way:

There is a tension between our rights to choose what we want to do with our propertry and our right to live in a system which features equality of oppurtunity.
Like most people, I don't believe in absolute equality, where everybody recieves exactly the same treatment, regardless of how hard they work, the risks they took, the ingenuity they showed. I believe that the hard-work, ingenuious risk-takers ought to be rewarded.
But I believe that we ought to fight for a system that equally rewards all the hard-working ingenious risk-takers roughly equally. I believe that we should work to create a system where a kid living in South Central L.A. has the same chances of multiplying his wealth as the son of Bill Gates, provided that both are willing to work equally hard.

The problem is that Bill Gates would be right to say, "Hey, I worked hard for my money. Don't I have a right to use it in a way that will make things easier for my son?"

I think it's a little bit of red herring to view this as an issue of collectivism vs. individualism. I am making a point about the fairness of the system as a whole, but I am not saying that the needs of the many outway the needs of the few. I'm saying that we ought to work for a system that is fair and just to all individuals.

Truthfully, I don't know how to respond to the "Bill Gates" objection. He does have a right to make things easier on his son. And in a way he's a poor example, because he's an amazing humanitarian whose work really has done a lot to benefit the system as a whole.

Nathan link

7/21/2009 06:11:58

Jeff,

Thanks as always! I love that neither one of us has this figured out.

I'm really glad that you mentioned this topic on the other post because I've been racking my brain trying to figure out exactly how wealth should be fairly redistributed and I haven't come up with anything solid yet... probably, it's somewhere between the two extremes of individualism and collectivism. Hopefully we'll get closer to the middle ground through these great conversations!

Comments are closed.

Don't Panic

Probate, Wills & the Redistribution of Wealth

About Nathan