Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is property?
Message-ID: <792@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 16:11:32 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.792
Posted: Mon Apr  8 16:11:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 06:15:46 EST
References: <764@bunker.UUCP> <862@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>, <775@bunker.UUCP> <5406@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 46

> Gary, I don't think that you have ever been involved in a will battle.

True.

> They are awful. Simply saying ``I bequeath X to Y'' is not good enough.
> Z, who didn't get anything, and wants stuff will get his lawyer in to
> demonstrate that the deceased either owed something to Z, or was out of
> his mind when he wrote the will -- ``being of sound mind and body'' to
> the contrary.

Granting the above, is it your conclusion that there should be no
such things as wills in Libertaria, or that the way wills are
handled should be fixed?  Or are you merely challenging my speculation
that a will is less complicated than the arrangement I would have
to create in Libertaria to simulate a will, if they are eliminated?

> There are some good cases where a man was kicked out of home by his father
> and went off to make a fortune. As he lived he never gave his family a penny,
> and when he wrote his will he put in a paragraph to the effect that since
> they have never done anything good for him while he was alive they were
> jolly well not going to get anything from him while he was dead.

> The family contested the will and won.

The man's mistake may have been in including his rationale for not
giving them anything in the will.  If his family could show that they
had done *something* for him, then the rest of the paragraph could
also be discarded.  But in any case, I don't think throwing out wills
entirely is the best way to fix the problem (that wills are subverted).

> I think that all wills should be read and settled while the property
> owner is still alive. This approach will fail in the case of accidental
> death, though.

I.e., this approach will fail in precisely those cases where a will
is most necessary.  If I have some idea when I'm going to die -- I
have a terminal illness, for example -- then I can give everything
to those I wish to be my heirs before I die.  What to do with property
in the case of unexpected death, either through accident or sudden
illness (e.g., heart attack) is the problem a will is supposed to solve.

> Laura Creighton
> utzoo!laura

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys