Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!rnms1.paradyne.com!dave
From: dave@rnms1.paradyne.COM (Dave Cameron (Consultant))
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Whole-Body Frostbite:  Can It Be Cured?
Message-ID: <8906120203.AB12599@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 89 15:38:51 GMT
References: <8905310354.AA19574@athos.rutgers.edu> <8906010522.AA05579@athos.rutgers.edu>
Sender: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 44
Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu


>In article <8905310354.AA19574@athos.rutgers.edu> mmm@cup.portal.COM (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>>
>*flame on*
>
>Uh, excuse me, but the living have exactly the same rights as the
>person making their will ---and the person making the will can decide to
>do with their wealth as they please.  Regardless of the consequences for
>others.
>	David Honig

I'm sorry but this is simply not correct. It is well established that a
person's right to dispose of his/her wealth as he/she sees fit is
SUBJECT TO THE WELFARE OF THE SOCIETY.

(Its not just a good idea, its the law)

The specific example I was given was:
	A sentimental widower dies, and not wanting anyone else to live in the
	house they shared, specifies that the house will be boarded up forever
	(and provides funds for the purpose).

This can be overturned in court on the grounds that the having useful
property unused is not in the best interest of the society.
(The same with distructive clauses like "burn my stuff when i die").

Monitary foundations would not have this problem, as the wealth is "invested".
However, perpetual trusts and trusts to fund a "worthless" expense
would.

The good news is that the courts give the will a big benifit of the doubt,
but ITS THEIR CALL, and the principle remains intact.

Dave "it's a cold world and then you're frozen" Cameron

[Specifically, this depends on the legal status of the preservee.
 If s/he is (as is currently the case) considered legally dead,
 you are correct.  If not, the law of eminent domain would apply,
 and although the government could still take your holdings, it
 would be required to pay for them.
 Interestingly enough, the Dora Kent case appears to have established
 a legal precedent that persons under suspension do have some
 residual rights.
 --JoSH]