There's a fair amount I agree with here, but I think the point about 'nepo babies' may be overstated if you're looking at a sample size of 14 out of ~4000.
- inheritance wealth has been accumulated after tax, i.e. it's what remains from paying property and income taxes for a lifetime;
- the heirs did not work for the inheritance, but neither did the state, so it's as much "theft" if inheritances are expropriated by the state, as it would be if they are passed over to heirs
In Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine argued for an estate tax (_not_ 100%!) to fund a one-time payment to every citizen when they turned twenty-one. The recipient could spend the money on education, business, or wine, women, and song -- but after that, society owed you nothing.
An interesting idea. The problem with the estate tax is the same as that of any other tax on income, wealth, investment, or commerce. It makes no distinction between wealth that's been earned and wealth that hasn't. I think Steve Wozniak deserves every one of his billions of dollars, because he made computing more accessible to the whole world. I don't feel the same about an old-world aristocrat whose family has been collecting rent from landless peasants for hundreds of years.
> [Abolishing inheritance] is spiritual warfare in denying the eternal or long-lasting, and the same mentality behind replacement migration.
This is great insight. The whole piece is indeed thought-provoking, one of the best here. I have to ponder on the whole affair before commenting further. Let me just point out one thing in one of the twitter blurbs:
> Matt Walsh: Nobody lacks an internal monologue.[..] It's an absurd idea that any human being lacks a capacity for thought. Especially if that human is talking about their experience of not thinking.
Societies made up of more people than the Dunbar number of ~150 are ungovernable without an hierarchy.
Besides, even if you call a group of less than 150 your polity, the natural way for people to organise themselves is through malicious constant scheming and gossip, see for instance networking on social media. This would translate into a Matriarchy. Anyone who raises his head over the average, would be crushed down back to the surrounding mediocrity by social pressure from the group.
I'd rather be ruled by a bureaucrat from far away, than be subjected to the tyranny of the most devious and scheming in my childhood circle all life long.
Not to mention that only a complex society, one that needs to be administered from a central capital, can create enough labour specialisation in order to valorise the biggest set possible of talents.
If like today big government doesn't care to promote talent anymore, because for instance there is no need to prevail in competition with other polities, then a oligarchy most likely will capture the state apparatus, and will redistribute prestigious, and even technical positions not according to talent but to convenience. And it's at that point that the scheming and intriguing nature of the matriarchy rears its ugly head again.
There is anthropological research revealing best hunters of a hunter-gatherer tribe not being celebrated for their accomplishments, but antagonised by the rest of the tribe, women first in line.
There's a fair amount I agree with here, but I think the point about 'nepo babies' may be overstated if you're looking at a sample size of 14 out of ~4000.
Interesting pair of comments from unz.com:
- inheritance wealth has been accumulated after tax, i.e. it's what remains from paying property and income taxes for a lifetime;
- the heirs did not work for the inheritance, but neither did the state, so it's as much "theft" if inheritances are expropriated by the state, as it would be if they are passed over to heirs
In Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine argued for an estate tax (_not_ 100%!) to fund a one-time payment to every citizen when they turned twenty-one. The recipient could spend the money on education, business, or wine, women, and song -- but after that, society owed you nothing.
An interesting idea. The problem with the estate tax is the same as that of any other tax on income, wealth, investment, or commerce. It makes no distinction between wealth that's been earned and wealth that hasn't. I think Steve Wozniak deserves every one of his billions of dollars, because he made computing more accessible to the whole world. I don't feel the same about an old-world aristocrat whose family has been collecting rent from landless peasants for hundreds of years.
Geoism FTW. http://gameofrent.com/
These Napoleon-hat NPC ideologies are in vogue again; time to read more James C. Scott books
> [Abolishing inheritance] is spiritual warfare in denying the eternal or long-lasting, and the same mentality behind replacement migration.
This is great insight. The whole piece is indeed thought-provoking, one of the best here. I have to ponder on the whole affair before commenting further. Let me just point out one thing in one of the twitter blurbs:
> Matt Walsh: Nobody lacks an internal monologue.[..] It's an absurd idea that any human being lacks a capacity for thought. Especially if that human is talking about their experience of not thinking.
There is what's probably the weirdest post ever on reddit which proves otherwise https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3yrw2i/i_never_thought_with_language_until_now_this_is/
Do yourself a favour and read that post because it's just so clarifying on the extent of how much other people can really be different from oneself.
Think of the government as a very large landlord that charges rent in the form of taxation.
...welcome t o A N C A P I S T A N
Societies made up of more people than the Dunbar number of ~150 are ungovernable without an hierarchy.
Besides, even if you call a group of less than 150 your polity, the natural way for people to organise themselves is through malicious constant scheming and gossip, see for instance networking on social media. This would translate into a Matriarchy. Anyone who raises his head over the average, would be crushed down back to the surrounding mediocrity by social pressure from the group.
I'd rather be ruled by a bureaucrat from far away, than be subjected to the tyranny of the most devious and scheming in my childhood circle all life long.
Not to mention that only a complex society, one that needs to be administered from a central capital, can create enough labour specialisation in order to valorise the biggest set possible of talents.
If like today big government doesn't care to promote talent anymore, because for instance there is no need to prevail in competition with other polities, then a oligarchy most likely will capture the state apparatus, and will redistribute prestigious, and even technical positions not according to talent but to convenience. And it's at that point that the scheming and intriguing nature of the matriarchy rears its ugly head again.
There is anthropological research revealing best hunters of a hunter-gatherer tribe not being celebrated for their accomplishments, but antagonised by the rest of the tribe, women first in line.