Why should children be allowed to receive gifts from their parents (aka inheritance)? It's a really weird question.
There is the normal fact that the rightful owners of property don't need a reason to give it to someone; they are free to give, keep, sell, or destroy their property as they see fit, just as everyone else is.
That alone should settle this question, but it's even weirder that someone would complain when you apply this theory to parent-child relationships. Children have a natural claim to the prosperity of their parents at least until they come of age, and after that point, the parents will almost always have a continuing interest in the prosperity and well-being of the child, and they will use every rightful advantage they possess to secure it, including the ability to share money. Why shouldn't they? Isn't that what parents are supposed to do for their kids? If parents have sufficient resources to make it so their children can be secure and prosperous, wouldn't you expect them to deploy those resources to that end?
When you have kids, supplying for their needs becomes the main focus of your life for decades (and I would suggest it never ends, as your children have children that you will want to care for, and they'll have children, and so on...). If we want to encourage productivity, parents will be deeply de-motivated by rules that prevent their children from sharing in their property.
I know that personally, one of my overarching life goals is to have enough money not only to survive, but to put me in a position to ensure the survival and prosperity of my posterity as they age. That doesn't mean that they won't ever have a job. But if, for whatever reason, I felt my kid needed some money, I absolutely would expect to be able to give them money, and putting myself in a position to do that is a strong motivator for me.
Is the anti-inheritance theory that if some people have to waste 8 hours a day in wage slavery or spend 30 years in debt slavery to "own" a house, everyone else should have to too? Is it unfair for some people to have enough money to share with their kids that the kids don't have to go through that? Why do we all have to be born slaves of the financial-industrial complex?
I want to have enough money that wage and/or debt slavery are optional for my kids. I don't want them to have to worry about becoming homeless because they don't prostrate themselves to the boss's satisfaction. There's no reason my children should have to have those limitations if I'm able to supply an alternate path for them.
If my kids become evil because they have too much money, I'll stop giving them money. Pretty simple, right? Why should anyone be able to tell me that they don't trust my evaluation of my own child's needs and that the child must be a wage and debt slave to develop "good character" (read: to generate a lot of interest for us)?
I've known my children since they were born and I plan to know them until I become deceased. My wife and myself are now and will continue to be the persons most intimately familiar with the children and therefore best qualified to judge their needs and make determinations as to the beneficial extent of their wage and debt slavery. That's how it should be!
And I'll add tangentially, I think attempts to characterize children from wealthy families as lazy or entitled merely because they are not wage slaves are absurd. Wealthy children have many unique opportunities and frequently get involved in a variety of interesting engagements and causes which are surely much more socially beneficial than the cart-pushing, fry-cooking engagements of their peers. Equating idleness with freedom from wage and debt slavery is a very dangerous fallacy, but it clearly serves the interests of some nefarious anti-social actors.
The phrasing of the headline is a trap. Arguments against inheritance are really arguments against private property. Articles about "the 1%" are propaganda orchestrated specifically to anger 99 out of 100 people, who will say "what makes them so much more deserving of abundance than me?! We should take some of their stuff away so that things are 'more fair'."
That's not what inheritance or security is about. Notice that none of my motivations refer to having more than others, or buying fancier things, or doing anything else to oppress or harm anyone. My motivations are limited solely to ensuring that I can fulfill my direct responsibility to work to ensure the health, security, and prosperity of my family in the long-term.
The stigma on inheritance is pure propaganda, intended to keep as many people in wage and debt slavery as possible.
As a father and patriarch, I see developing the ability to protect my children from that slavery (not necessarily from those experiences) as an important element of my role, to the extent that I'm able to do so. Rules that jeopardize this are oppressive and I would seek to vacate any jurisdiction in which they were applicable.
There is the normal fact that the rightful owners of property don't need a reason to give it to someone; they are free to give, keep, sell, or destroy their property as they see fit, just as everyone else is.
That alone should settle this question, but it's even weirder that someone would complain when you apply this theory to parent-child relationships. Children have a natural claim to the prosperity of their parents at least until they come of age, and after that point, the parents will almost always have a continuing interest in the prosperity and well-being of the child, and they will use every rightful advantage they possess to secure it, including the ability to share money. Why shouldn't they? Isn't that what parents are supposed to do for their kids? If parents have sufficient resources to make it so their children can be secure and prosperous, wouldn't you expect them to deploy those resources to that end?
When you have kids, supplying for their needs becomes the main focus of your life for decades (and I would suggest it never ends, as your children have children that you will want to care for, and they'll have children, and so on...). If we want to encourage productivity, parents will be deeply de-motivated by rules that prevent their children from sharing in their property.
I know that personally, one of my overarching life goals is to have enough money not only to survive, but to put me in a position to ensure the survival and prosperity of my posterity as they age. That doesn't mean that they won't ever have a job. But if, for whatever reason, I felt my kid needed some money, I absolutely would expect to be able to give them money, and putting myself in a position to do that is a strong motivator for me.
Is the anti-inheritance theory that if some people have to waste 8 hours a day in wage slavery or spend 30 years in debt slavery to "own" a house, everyone else should have to too? Is it unfair for some people to have enough money to share with their kids that the kids don't have to go through that? Why do we all have to be born slaves of the financial-industrial complex?
I want to have enough money that wage and/or debt slavery are optional for my kids. I don't want them to have to worry about becoming homeless because they don't prostrate themselves to the boss's satisfaction. There's no reason my children should have to have those limitations if I'm able to supply an alternate path for them.
If my kids become evil because they have too much money, I'll stop giving them money. Pretty simple, right? Why should anyone be able to tell me that they don't trust my evaluation of my own child's needs and that the child must be a wage and debt slave to develop "good character" (read: to generate a lot of interest for us)?
I've known my children since they were born and I plan to know them until I become deceased. My wife and myself are now and will continue to be the persons most intimately familiar with the children and therefore best qualified to judge their needs and make determinations as to the beneficial extent of their wage and debt slavery. That's how it should be!
And I'll add tangentially, I think attempts to characterize children from wealthy families as lazy or entitled merely because they are not wage slaves are absurd. Wealthy children have many unique opportunities and frequently get involved in a variety of interesting engagements and causes which are surely much more socially beneficial than the cart-pushing, fry-cooking engagements of their peers. Equating idleness with freedom from wage and debt slavery is a very dangerous fallacy, but it clearly serves the interests of some nefarious anti-social actors.
The phrasing of the headline is a trap. Arguments against inheritance are really arguments against private property. Articles about "the 1%" are propaganda orchestrated specifically to anger 99 out of 100 people, who will say "what makes them so much more deserving of abundance than me?! We should take some of their stuff away so that things are 'more fair'."
That's not what inheritance or security is about. Notice that none of my motivations refer to having more than others, or buying fancier things, or doing anything else to oppress or harm anyone. My motivations are limited solely to ensuring that I can fulfill my direct responsibility to work to ensure the health, security, and prosperity of my family in the long-term.
The stigma on inheritance is pure propaganda, intended to keep as many people in wage and debt slavery as possible.
As a father and patriarch, I see developing the ability to protect my children from that slavery (not necessarily from those experiences) as an important element of my role, to the extent that I'm able to do so. Rules that jeopardize this are oppressive and I would seek to vacate any jurisdiction in which they were applicable.