Elsewhere (117)
Chris Bing on that elite education you could be paying for:
Skidmore College, ranked as one of the nation’s most expensive private colleges in the country, is now officially offering a course on Miley Cyrus: “The Sociology of Miley Cyrus: Race, Class, Gender, and Media.” The 2014 summer course will be taught by assistant visiting professor of sociology Carolyn Chernoff. “I am interested in cities, arts, and social change, particularly on the level of social interaction and the production of ‘community,’” Chernoff’s professional bio reads on the school’s website. “I investigate the role of culture in reproducing and transforming social inequality, and research conflict around diversity and difference.”
No, don’t. You mustn’t laugh at a woman in hipster glasses.
Tim Blair goes undercover, unsuccessfully, at a Green activist training day:
Next we were called upon to mingle with each other. “Try to find the person in the room who looks as though they hold completely different views to yours,” [anti-capitalist activist Bruce] Knobloch urged, which was an optimistic call, given that everyone at the event was of like mind. A laughing Asian woman turned to me and said: “Everyone should just line up to meet you.”
Do read Tim’s adventure in full. You’ll learn about “non-linear change strategies” and the looming “fascism” of people who aren’t anti-capitalist activists.
Jim Goad checks his “white privilege”:
According to conference founder Eddie Moore, Jr., “White supremacy, white privilege, racism and other forms of oppression are designed for your destruction – designed to kill you.” If that’s the case, privileged whites are doing a piss-poor job, seeing as how the 400,000 or so Africans who were transported to the New World in slave ships have – through the noxious evils of white privilege, white technology, and living amid a predominantly white culture – blossomed into around 40 million modern black Americans. That’s an increase of 100-1 and truly the most inept genocide in world history.
And Tom Paine bids us goodbye and good luck:
To me, [Britain] now seems a strange, immoral place. For example, I read articles in the Guardian and the Times this week about the abolition of inherited wealth. The Economist also recently wrote about it. It did not even occur to any of these columnists that they were talking about the property of others. They did not create it. They did not inherit it. They have no just claim to it. Yet they have no moral concerns about proposing its seizure.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments.
No, don’t. You mustn’t laugh at a woman in hipster glasses.
And I was taking her so seriously up to that point.
And I was taking her so seriously up to that point.
Apparently Ms Cyrus and her gyrations will be a “lens through which students can explore themes about race, gender, and identity in the media.” Plus “social change” and socialism, obviously. Which I suppose is an extension of the idea, now quite common, that “lifestyle and pop culture” is something to be announced proudly as an area of “expertise.” As if it were something exclusive and precious, unexplored elsewhere, and no less useful and intellectually demanding than expertise in engineering, chemistry or IT.
Useless people need credentials too. 😉
And Tom Paine bids us goodbye and good luck
Another good blog disappears.
Humanities are for people who don’t do math.
http://laughingsquid.com/the-expert-a-hilarious-sketch-about-the-pain-of-being-the-only-engineer-in-a-business-meeting/
That’s an increase of 100-1 and truly the most inept genocide in world history.
I expect we did a much more competent job on the American Indian population, but let’s just devalue the term so everyone can be an ongoing victim of racial extermination. We’re all special.
Apparently the only way to … usher in this long-promised and long-delayed era of post-racial harmony is to be absolutely fucking obsessed with race.
What he said.
“No, don’t. You mustn’t laugh at a woman in hipster glasses.”
Or the oh so ironic slave collar?
Useless people need credentials too.
Well, the career applications of Dr Chernoff’s course aren’t entirely obvious. It seems to follow the standard pattern for such things – being silly, pretentious and dogmatically question-begging. For all the blather about “critical thinking,” the expected conclusions seem fairly obvious.
Though I suppose the silliness depends on whether you feel a pressing need to spend three days a week and thousands of dollars “studying” the public image – sorry, “intersectional identities” – of another transient and throwaway pop celebrity. Albeit with some bolted-on guff about “progressive politics,” “deconstructing privilege,” and “bisexuality, queerness and the female body.” And it may depend on how seriously you can take a self-described “cultural worker” in post-ironic clown glasses who says in all seriousness, “Miley Cyrus is a surprisingly complicated cultural moment,” and who, as a measure of her class’s intellectual rigour, points out that the exams won’t be multiple choice.
And naturally, Dr Chernoff regards the widespread mockery of her project as a validation of it, while suggesting the mockery is chiefly because she’s a woman. (As if the same waffle mouthed by a male lecturer would be any less comical.) Apparently, it “proves the need for a class like this.” Though at present only 3 students have seen fit to sign up.
the career applications of Dr Chernoff’s course aren’t entirely obvious.
A career in comedy sociology?
the career applications of Dr Chernoff’s course aren’t entirely obvious?
Twerk your way to the top!
Some of those lefty activists are barmy, but surely none so loop-the-loop as ‘Tom Paine’ who thinks that the UK is an actual fascist state.
Personally II don’t see why people should necessarily be allowed to inherit property, but then I have s strong meritocratic tendency that perhaps should be resisted.
Minnow,
I don’t see why people should necessarily be allowed to inherit property,
The word “allowed” is rather heavy with implication, which is pretty much what I think Tom is getting at. See also this earlier post, a point of which is the failure to apprehend one’s willingness to impose on others as being morally contested, or even contestable. Though you may want to query Tom on this, rather than rely on my understanding of what he means.
but then I have a strong meritocratic tendency
Years ago while renting a flat, my downstairs neighbour, a woman in her mid-twenties, inherited some money and used it as a deposit to buy her first home. She was obviously thrilled and, from what I could make out, was unaccustomed to receiving chunks of money out of the blue. Given your comment about meritocracy, which apparently trumps freedom, perhaps I was supposed to disapprove, or feel envious or resentful, as if her good fortune had some detrimental effect on me. Though I’m not sure why I’d be unhappy about my neighbour receiving a life-changing gift from someone who must have cared about her quite a lot.
[ Edited. ]
Personally II don’t see why people should necessarily be allowed to inherit property
‘Allowed.’?
Because it’s my money. Now fuck off and mind your own business.
‘Allowed.’?
Because it’s my money. Now fuck off and mind your own business.
At some point awhile back, in some forum, I pointed out that the advantage of the flat income tax over the “progressive” is that when there is the “progressive” variety, what will tend to happen anyway is that anyone who can afford to will arrange to rig assorted tax deferment loopholes so that the actual final payments are at the level of a flat tax rate, if even that high . . .
Much easier to declare the flat rate for all, and then then the only focus needed is on making certain that all do pay the flat rate instead of none . . . .
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/17/st-patricks-day-celebration-of-whiteness/
And here I thought the origins of St. Patrick’s day were a lot more complex and thought the parade was just an excuse to have a good time and drink to year heart’s content. Also, check the comment below the article.
“No, don’t. You mustn’t laugh at a woman in hipster glasses.”
Or the oh so ironic slave collar?
Siiiigghhhh.
Ah yes, heroically falling flat on once’s face and then socially exclaiming I meant to do that!! I meant to do that!! Why aren’t you admiring me??!!!
The following is a scattering of notes from reality and other observations that is somewhat inspired by, and definitely related to, William Bayer’s “Juniors and Heavies” . . . . .
The weak are the followers, those who don’t just jump on the bandwagon but demand to do so. . . . .
While the deluded share many of the characteristics of the weak, the deluded differentiate themselves from the weak in that they fantasize that they can plausibly claim that they should have the ability to impress others. , , , ,
Another such example of the complicated, contrived, and blatantly surreal, among both genders of deluded, is all instances of pulling up or winding up with the collar on end, of a shirt or jacket or whatever, to be s symbolic veterinarian or vet’s collar. Or, with the same action, the deluded may intend to visually demonstrate to all observers that the particular deluded is actively seeking and expecting radio signals from the Mothership or the space aliens or The Secrit Govment Agency, or whatever stated reason the deluded gives for having a collar standing on end. With normal people when wearing a shirt, coat, whatever, with a collar, the collar is folded over because such a collar just is. By complete contrast, consider these following two possibilities of any deluded that has the collar pulled up on end, or worse yet, has contrived a shirt or coat where there is no way to have a normal collar.
For the the deluded that wants everyone to think of a vet’s collar, observe any dog that has just been castrated, is newly returned from the vet, and is wearing the exact same collar. Note the deluded with vet’s collar that is standing on end, note the dog with vet’s collar that is standing on end, note deluded and dog being totally and openly identical in appearance, note that such appearance openly signals to all the message of being castrated, docile, completely at the whim of the nearest owner. There really is nothing complimentary that will ever be said to any deluded wearing a vet’s collar, the deluded will never understand it, and really is expecting or hoping to be told any variations on “Heel”, “Roll over”, “Play dead”, and “Who’s your owner?”.
In turn, for the deluded that wants all observers to be impressed that the deluded is clearly trying to get guidance from the space aliens—or whomever—observe any radio antenna used for picking up radio signals from space. Note the deluded with a radio antenna collar that is standing on end, note the radio antenna with exact same shape, complete with feed antenna sticking out of the middle, note deluded and antenna being totally and openly identical in appearance, note that such appearance openly signals to all the message of the deluded eagerly seeking out radio transmissions from—whomever—so that the deluded then claims to have a sense of meaning and purpose. There really is nothing complimentary that will ever be said to any deluded that is costumed to look like a radio antenna, the deluded will never understand it, and really is expecting or hoping to be told some variation on “I notice you have your collar on end so that you can collect radio signals to have guidance. Do you think the Mothership will arrive soon?”
One keeps thinking that mebbe someday that a or the hipsters will finally notice that identifiably being a hipster just marks one as the bottom of society . . . but then again, if hipsters had synapses they wouldn’t be hipsters . . .
And here I thought the origins of St. Patrick’s day were a lot more complex . . . .
Hate it when that happens . . ..
Fun fact: St. Patrick’s day is celebrated in some parts of Mexico, a “non-White” nation, primary in Mexico City and the Northern and Western parts of the country, where Irish immigrants historically resided and where there is proximity to the USA.
David – thank you for sharing the Tim Blair link, he’s fast becoming my favourite Antipodean. To be honest, the competition for that accolade isn’t ferocious, although it does include the delightful Clive James, itinerant cutlery comparer Crocodile Dundee, and Australian cultural attache and Renaissance Man Les Patterson.
He’s a braver man than me for knowingly entering the lair of those geriatric Gaia-botherers. The miasma of ostentatious self-righteousness and Steradent must have been cloying.
I’d have been tempted to carry an emergency bag of Werthers Originals with which to distract the dessicated deoderant-dodging progressives and effect my escape, should the liver-spotted Leninists close in on me in their mobility scooters and start shrieking like Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers while flogging me feebly with Naomi Klein books and rolled up copies of The Guardian.
St. Patrick’s day is celebrated in some parts of Mexico, a “non-White” nation
That doesn’t matter. Mexico also has very stringent immigration policies, serious punishments for those who enter illegally, and it prevents non-citizens from holding many types of jobs. But it doesn’t count; when non-white people do “racist” things it’s acceptable. It only counts when whites do it. And that’s no “anglo-centric” at all.
If her glasses and CV are any indication of her intellectual caliber…
Who’s with me?: I’m going to start the ‘International Social Studies Institute.’
I’ll charge a modest fee for aspiring academics and social commentators to reference their affiliation with the good work we do every day at the Institute
”I investigate the role of culture in reproducing and transforming social inequality, and research conflict around diversity and difference.”
Funnily enough, when I followed the link; the above statement was immediately followed by an advertisement which read “Learn to speak English”…
I think it perhaps easier and more informative to simply drop some acid than it is to bother viewing the world through the lens of Miley Cyrus.
I failed, and laughed; and what’s more, out loud in an office. I keep thinking that surely these people must be deliberate parodies, but apparently not, and, they hate being called surly.
Could we diagnose and treat leftism as HyperOxytocin?
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-duo-oxytocin-group-serving-dishonesty.html
I don’t see why people should necessarily be allowed to inherit property, but then I have s strong meritocratic tendency that perhaps should be resisted
meritocratic? No, I think the word you’re looking for is covetous.
Who’s with me?: I’m going to start the ‘International Social Studies Institute.’
I’ll charge a modest fee for aspiring academics and social commentators to reference their affiliation with the good work we do every day at the Institute
Cash payments only, of course, paid in full before the accreditation, and immediate cutoff when the term runs out without further payment . . . .
Darleen,
I think the word you’re looking for is covetous.
Aside from a touch of hyperbole, I think Tom Paine’s basic point is hard to avoid. In some quarters there’s a remarkable disregard for the moral contentiousness of seizing other people’s stuff. The idea that meritocracy, so defined, trumps freedom and the right to bequeath and to keep what’s bequeathed (or some of it at least). And that the state must be inserted totally into all such transactions, as if it were some moral corrective and arbiter of who may leave what to whom, of who deserves what. It’s enormously tendentious and drips with implication. Much of which is oddly, suspiciously, ignored.
For instance, the Guardian’s James Butler denounces the “wealth gaps between classes” as if economic inequality, in and of itself, were an unquestionable wickedness, invariably caused by wickedness and demanding correction by means of state seizure. “Why,” he asks, “do we permit this?” Aside from waving around a copy of Thomas Piketty’s book (a book riddled with errors and wild assumptions, and poked at repeatedly by Tim Worstall), Mr Butler doesn’t explain why state seizure and the abolition of inheritance is moral or necessary, he just says it is. “We should… demand an end to inherited wealth entirely.” So there. His own egalitarian sentiment, along with vast reservoirs of envy and spite, is taken as the starting point, the unargued imperative.
Neither does Mr Butler explain how this total confiscation might work, what the consequences might be, or how the electorate might react. He doesn’t seem at all interested in, or concerned by, the implications of what he wants. Because his violation will be socialist and therefore just by definition. The nearest we get to a rationale that isn’t simply covetousness in drag is when he tells us, “It is difficult to justify inherited wealth from anything other than a class-partisan position.” Which, given the example of my neighbour, above, and many others like it, is evidently untrue.
” In some quarters there’s a remarkable disregard for the moral contentiousness of seizing other people’s stuff.”
I think that is a funny way of looking at it. What is in question are the property rights of dead people. It is not obvious that they should have any. There are clear meritocratic benefits to curtailing inheritance without any loss of freedom because the dead do not have any freedoms. But when you start thinking that it is fascistic to increase the tax on what dead people do with their money, I think you need a long lie down in a darkened room.
“meritocratic? No, I think the word you’re looking for is covetous.”
No, quite the opposite, I would be much poorer if the inheritance laws were changed. But I don’t think I deserve to be richer just because I happen to have been born how and where I was.
Minnow, no covetous, or perhaps just plain greedy, would be quite apt. It isn’t the property rights of dead people we’re concerned with, it is those of the living named heirs that are affected. Generally speaking, the dead don’t actually care anymore; at least, as far as we know.
Why can’t we just give money to people, and do so before we die ? Or put the assets in a trust and make them joint beneficiaries with a transfer of trustee duties upon death ?
“Minnow, no covetous, or perhaps just plain greedy, would be quite apt.”
No, really, it wouldn’t. I would be poorer if inheritance tax was raised, as I explained.
“It isn’t the property rights of dead people we’re concerned with, it is those of the living named heirs that are affected.”
We are concerned with dead people spending/gifting money and it is not obvious why they have that right. As you have noticed, they don’t have many others. Of course, if they want to give away their money while they are alive they would be free to do it. Another benefit of ending inheritance, people would be incentivised to be much more careful in spending their money if they had to do it while alive, and they might invest in their children when those children need it more too.
We are concerned with dead people spending/gifting money and it is not obvious why they have that right. As you have noticed, they don’t have many others. Of course, if they want to give away their money while they are alive they would be free to do it
So if someone knows in advance roughly when they are going to die, they can arrange to give away their property. Put, as the old phrase has it, their affairs in order.
But on the other hand if death comes as a surprise to them, they lose that right. Is that what you’re saying?
Does that seem fair to you? To die unexpectedly seems bad enough; why should it also deprive one of the ability to dispose of one’s property as one wishes, as one would have had if one had had greater warning? That seems to me to heap unfairness upon unfairness.
Once again Minnow proves David’s point for him.
Minnow,
I don’t think my previous comment reveals a “funny way of looking at it” at all. There’s no need to frame the issue, as you do, in terms of “the property rights of dead people” who “do not have any freedoms.” Your insistence on this framing seems glib and evasive. For example, one might frame the issue in rather more obvious terms – say, of the example I gave earlier – of an elderly woman of unremarkable means wishing to leave her granddaughter, also of unremarkable means, enough money for a deposit on a modest house. It’s the wishes of the living regarding their own property and their family that is the central issue.
Maybe Anna, but which one?
“So if someone knows in advance roughly when they are going to die, they can arrange to give away their property … But on the other hand if death comes as a surprise to them, they lose that right … Does that seem fair to you?”
Yes, that would cover some of it and, yes, it seems fair to me. Why should dead people have property rights? They don’t have other rights. They would lose their restaurant reservations for example, without compensation. Gym membership instantly expires even if you have just renewed it. It is hard, but that is life (well, its opposite)
” It’s the wishes of the living regarding their own property and their family that is the central issue.”
But it isn’t and it is strange that you insist it is when we all agree that inheritance only occurs when people die. Old ladies might want to give gifts to granddaughters and I wouldn’t want to prevent them, but dead grandmothers don’t have wishes and shouldn’t necessarily be accorded rights. I don’t see why that old lady’s granddaughter had a moral right? to her property, unless you have some theory about property rights being in some way linked to genetic make up? And using the full majesty of that law to protect someone’s ‘wishes’ is frankly a little bit peculiar. We don’t do it in any other place. The defence that that was what I wished m’lud will not get you very far when you did something different.
And, of course, the inheritance laws mainly favour the gigantic fortunes that keep power in the hands of small social groups. It is very inefficient too. History surely shows that the sons of rich men are not necessarily the best repositories of large sums of money. Handy for the world’s coke dealers and casinos, but not great for the economy as a whole.
“No, don’t. You mustn’t laugh at a woman in hipster glasses.”
Did she get them off Dame Edna?
Minnow,
Old ladies might want to give gifts to granddaughters and I wouldn’t want to prevent them
But it seems obvious that you do. Apparently you’re happy to violate a person’s customary final transaction with those they love. “Dead grandmothers don’t have wishes and shouldn’t necessarily be accorded rights,” etc. Maybe you feel that when a person dies, when every person dies, the state should swoop in and confiscate anything not nailed down or dispersed in advance. I’m not sure that’s a road to happiness or justice, or anything approaching that.
The notion of inheritance as some evil and unjust force exclusive to the wealthy and no-one else is untrue, indeed laughable. It’s how members of many families escape from poverty, how they create better lives for their children. In the example I gave above, the gift made a big difference to my neighbour’s life, and good for her. A “class-partisan position,” as the Guardian’s Mr Butler puts it, isn’t necessary to wish her well and I’m certainly not arguing from a position of immediate self-interest. I don’t expect to inherit anything of great value. And why should we believe, as some do with eerie certainty, that the state (and statists) have some overwhelming moral claim, a veto, on a grandmother’s final gift-giving, such that she can be banned from leaving her granddaughter a parting token of her affection?
I really don’t want to stop old ladies doing anything. I just don’t think that people should get special privileges when they are dead. We all agree that property rights of the dead are restricted in many ways, the fact that it just seems natural not to restrict them in other ways is no argument. Some things have always been done for the wrong reasons. You are very impressed that a nice young lady was given a gift by her grandmother and used is wisely, but for every case like that there is an opposite, the young man who used a small inheritance to buy a gun to use for crime, for example. They prove nothing. But if you are a meritocrat on principle, you must be against inheritance on principle because it is necessarily anti-meritocratic and easily disposed of (there are some issues, like what to do with family run businesses, but they are technical and fairly easily resolved I reckon). I often meet people who claim to be meritocrats, who seem genuinely to believe they are meritocrats, believing that your place in the world should be decided by your on talents and efforts and nothing else, but scratch them on something like this, and it turns out they are really just interested in protecting the privileges of the property-owning classes. Not all of them benefit personally, some people are just deferential by nature or habit. False consciousness? It looks like it to me.
Hi Minnow
“What is in question are the property rights of dead people.”
Not so. What is in question are:
* The property rights of living people who make a will
* The property rights of living people whose husband, parent, civil partner, or other relation dies intestate
* The relationship between the State and the above. Historically, we’ve tolerated the State seizing a large chunk of people’s property on death (unless it’s put into a trust that legally avoids Inheritance Tax), but there’s a reason why liberal societies don’t abolish inheritance while nightmarish socialist regimes like the Soviet Union did, and that reason is that the State demanding all property reverts to it is incompatible with liberty. We, generally speaking, like our liberty in the West, and prefer it over the competing idea that we ultimately only enjoy life, liberty and all that other good stuff on the sufferance of the State.
“And, of course, the inheritance laws mainly favour the gigantic fortunes that keep power in the hands of small social groups. It is very inefficient too. History surely shows that the sons of rich men are not necessarily the best repositories of large sums of money. Handy for the world’s coke dealers and casinos, but not great for the economy as a whole.”
Maybe, but so what? Nothing to stop bright, hard working people creating their own gigantic fortunes in turn, if they’re able and willing to create goods and services that their fellow man is willing to exchange money for. Some of the richest people in the world today, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, and so on didn’t become rich because they inherited wealth. And neither did the Beckhams, Jay Z, or any of the other fabulously wealthy entertainers and entrepreneurs. None of these people were prevented from becoming successful because Paris Hilton’s family can afford to keep her in small dogs and night vision goggles.
A man who becomes rich through inherited wealth and blows it all on rogaine and cookers (if he’s dyslexic) will soon become a poor man, but whose business is that except his? Do you think politicians and civil servants are better repositories of large sums of other people’s money, given the multi-trillions of pounds of debt Western governments have managed to amass over the past few decades?
I’d be happier knowing that Scrooge McDuck’s nephews and heirs were merrily stuffing their inheritance into the g-strings of anthropomorphic avian strippers than the government of the DuckTales universe seizing that wealth to help fund a war in Iquack or whatever.
Minnow,
But if you are a meritocrat on principle,
I’ve never claimed that, or anything like it. In fact, I pointed out the tension between freedom and meritocracy as you define it. The eagerness to prioritise meritocracy, so defined, has some unsavoury implications, not least regarding state power and personal autonomy. That those implications are often ignored, sometimes determinedly, was the original point being made.
You are very impressed that a nice young lady was given a gift by her grandmother and used is wisely
I’m not “impressed,” I’m just not quite so ready to be callous or perverse. Inheritance of the kind I described is how a great many people, including people I know, have improved the lives of those they care about. No casinos, no coke; just a wish to help the people they love. The people who make up the numerical bulk of inheritance transactions aren’t “rich men” with “gigantic fortunes.” They’re more typically people of unremarkable means. People who may need to wait until they die before their assets can be distributed as they wish – the home in which they live may have to be sold (and taxed), etc., before any money can be gifted to loved ones.
but for every case like that there is an opposite, the young man who used a small inheritance to buy a gun to use for crime, for example.
Heh. That doesn’t help your argument in the way you may think it does.
False consciousness? It looks like it to me.
And again, as above.
Steve
You are making a mistake. Nobody is (here) challenging the property rights of the living but whether those rights (through the mystery of a legal device called a ‘will) should extend into death. Personally I don’t see good arguments why they should. You say:
“Historically, we’ve tolerated the State seizing a large chunk of people’s property on death (unless it’s put into a trust that legally avoids Inheritance Tax)”
But we haven’t really, it is quite a new thing and saw the end of many mighty fortunes and a lot of wailing about the end of civilisation. In fact civilisation went on quite well. Some people think it has even improved a bit, but generally not the people in the big houses lamenting the impossibility of hiring staff.
“and that reason is that the State demanding all property reverts to it is incompatible with liberty”
You say so, but why? Whose liberty is infringed except for the dead person? If the property is already in the ownership of a living person, the state has to back off. We do like our liberty, but it is not really diminished just because the Duke of Westminster’s son will be a billion or two less well off when the old man dies.
Of course we should not think that we only enjoy life and liberty in sufferance of the state, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking we can have those things without the state either. How long do you think the terms of those wills (the small ones at any rate) would be honoured without the apparatus of state violence to back them up?
David, I was aiming the remarks about meritocracy more generally, I am willing to bet that a large number of your commentators and readers would consider themselves meritocrats, but I take your point. I don’t see why it is callous or perverse to suggest that people who are born into families with money should not necessarily get money themselves though. It seems to me more callous to suggest that those born without should not benefit, the situation that inheritance helps to perpetuate.
Hi Minnow
“You are making a mistake”
It wouldn’t be the first time.
“Nobody is (here) challenging the property rights of the living but whether those rights (through the mystery of a legal device called a ‘will) should extend into death.”
Is a will mysterious? They seem quite a simple concept to me, and I can’t even work out a better method of fixing the clock on my car dashboard than “wait seven months”.
So a will is just a way of you deciding who gets your stuff when you die. It’s your stuff so you get to leave it to whoever you want. Simples. And this isn’t, strictly speaking, your property rights extending beyond death but that’s a tedious semantic argument so let’s not bother with that.
Re: Inheritance Tax
“But we haven’t really, it is quite a new thing and saw the end of many mighty fortunes and a lot of wailing about the end of civilisation. In fact civilisation went on quite well. Some people think it has even improved a bit, but generally not the people in the big houses lamenting the impossibility of hiring staff.”
What good has it done? Inheritance Tax hasn’t led to less inequality, at least if the regular denunciations of inequality in the Guardian are to be believed. It hasn’t led to money being spent more efficiently, the government spunked it all on Millenium Domes and wars. The only tangible outcome you mention is the humbling of the heirs of the former ruling class. I’m not sure we should be basing policy on spite.
Re: the incompatibility between the presumption that all property reverts to the State and liberty.
“You say so, but why? Whose liberty is infringed except for the dead person? If the property is already in the ownership of a living person, the state has to back off. We do like our liberty, but it is not really diminished just because the Duke of Westminster’s son will be a billion or two less well off when the old man dies.”
It’s incompatible with liberty because the State is meant to be our servant, not our master. Therefore they don’t, in a liberal society, get to claim ownership of us or all our worldlies either before or after we pop our clogs. That goes equally for rich men as it does for those of modest means.
And why should the State be magically privileged in getting to grab all of someone’s belongings after they die? Why not the Girl Guides, the Cat Protection Society, or the the League of Rick Astley Impersonators? They have as much moral claim as HMRC does to loot the wallet of a dead person they didn’t know.
“Of course we should not think that we only enjoy life and liberty in sufferance of the state, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking we can have those things without the state either. How long do you think the terms of those wills (the small ones at any rate) would be honoured without the apparatus of state violence to back them up?”
I’m not ananarchist. I believe we should have small, limited government to enforce contracts, jail people who mug old ladies, fix potholes and so on. That’s what the State is for – to serve us, and not the other way around.
We know that without external action the natural tendency of government over time is to expand indefinitely at the expense of liberty, so it needs regular pruning.
This would be one of those times when it’s wisest to snip off an unwanted outgrowth before it hatches (I don’t really know gardening).
If people are so aghast at inherited wealth there is nothing to stop them naming HM Government as their beneficiary. I wonder how many of the anti-inheritance crusaders have done that?
There seems to be essentially two positions here:
1) I shall dispose of MY wealth the way I see fit,
vs.
2) I shall dispose of YOUR wealth the way I see fit.
The fact that the second position is the credo of a thief should give it’s advocate pause, no matter how much utilitarian rhetorical squid ink is injected into the argument.
But it won’t.
No Fnord, the question is whether it is your wealth when you are dead. While alive you should (within reason) be able to do what you want with it.
“Is a will mysterious? They seem quite a simple concept to me”
I seems simple because it is familiar, but actually it is mysterious, it is a document that temporarily confers the rights of the living on the dead. Magic more or less.
A man and woman work all their lives and save what they earned so that they can live their final years without worry. Each leaves a will, WHILE LIVING, that should he or she die, the money goes to the other, so that they can continue living as planned. Knowing this will happen is a grat relief to them in their final years. The state has no business taking it