Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!ncg
From: ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Who deserves what?
Message-ID: <4993@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 06:52:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ukc.4993
Posted: Thu Mar 21 06:52:48 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 05:28:43 EST
References: <356@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <5183@utzoo.UUCP> <754@bunker.UUCP> <5284@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nigel Gale)
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Kent at Canterbury, UK
Lines: 30
Summary: 


The word 'deserve' inevitably brings the arguement to Death Duties:

Does an unproductive ne'er-do-well deserve the benefits of his
father's hard work?
Does an Etheopian child deserve a life measured in days rather than
years?

The problem is that no-one deserves to inherit anything, as they
haven't lived long enough at birth to have shown great worth.
The word 'deserve' is as vague as 'justice', and no two people
will have an identical opinion as to who deserves what.

What is the Libertarian view on death duties?
Surely in a system based on competition, it is unfair if one man
starts out better equipped to compete than another?
Death duties encourage a rich (wo)man to spend while (s)he is still
alive. (And what about gift tax... we don't want Mr E Scrooge giving
all his worldly to his son 20mins before he is due to snuff it -
or death duties would be 'unexpected death' duties).

I can see no solution to the death duties problem, so I am
interested to hear a Libertarian point of view, which would
doubtless be based on a system of logic entirely alien to
my own. I am always caused to think from a different slant by
the arguements of the libertarians. Some day I will grace you all
with my conclusions.


-Nigel Gale