Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Does Your Child Deserve...

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:31:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The residual, unspent income you have amassed upon your death?

This child has done nothing to earn this money.

Money which is unearned is typically squandered.

Why is it more efficient, morally correct, ethical, whatever, to give this money to someone simply because they share genetic material with the person who earned it rather than release it back into the economy where people with superior ideas and skills will have a chance to earn it through their innovation and entrepreneurship?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:34:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's up to the parent.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:35:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because this is a family society, not an individual society. People work just as hard for their children as they do for themselves. It's foolish to think a 100% estate tax would have no repercussions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:37:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"release it back into the economy where people with superior ideas and skills will have a chance to earn it through their innovation and entrepreneurship?"

Can you explain what you mean by this?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:39:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Milton Friedman says it best. People are incentivized to work and produce wealth though making sure that their children obtain inheritence. Parents work so that there children can have a better life.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:40:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:39:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:


Milton Friedman says it best. People are incentivized to work and produce wealth though making sure that their children obtain inheritence. Parents work so that there children can have a better life.

Exactly! That's where my point comes from.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:42:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They deserve it only if you will it to them. If you don't, they have no moral claim to the wealth--no one has a moral claim to anyone's wealth that isnt contractually granted to them
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:42:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
They deserve it only if you will it to them. If you don't, they have no moral claim to the wealth--no one has a moral claim to anyone's wealth that isnt contractually granted to them

It's contractually granted to them by default. It is assumed parents want their children to get their wealth if they make no will, because it's a common fact that it WILL go to them if they make no will.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:45:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:42:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
They deserve it only if you will it to them. If you don't, they have no moral claim to the wealth--no one has a moral claim to anyone's wealth that isnt contractually granted to them

It's contractually granted to them by default. It is assumed parents want their children to get their wealth if they make no will, because it's a common fact that it WILL go to them if they make no will.

That's basically theft.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:18:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:31:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The residual, unspent income you have amassed upon your death?

This child has done nothing to earn this money.

Money which is unearned is typically squandered.

Why is it more efficient, morally correct, ethical, whatever, to give this money to someone simply because they share genetic material with the person who earned it rather than release it back into the economy where people with superior ideas and skills will have a chance to earn it through their innovation and entrepreneurship?

If I amass wealth then it should be up to me what happens to it, do you really think the right thing to do is have the state seize my wealth upon my death? I am entitled to leave it to whoever I want, how do you figure the state is more entitled to it than me?

If the parents die while the children are underage, do you really advocate the state seize the property and what, put the kids in a orphanage or on the street? If a family member cam care for the kids, you don't think my wealth should go to that relative to help pay expenses. If a man that works hard to provide for his family dies, you advocate taking away his assets and putting his family out on the street?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:29:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Taking all of your posts into consideration, riddle me this -

How is it possible for all men to be created equal if some are born with no wealth, and some are born into a massive inheritance?

The massively idiotic proponent of Supply-Side economics and current monetary policy as Chief Economic Adviser to Ronald Reagan notwithstanding, doesn't your labor while you're alive, given that it allows your child better access to healthcare, nutrition, better schools, etc, already mean that you're work has been for the betterment of your child?

Why, after you are dead, should you be able to decide what is done with your money? One assumes that the moment you are ceased to be alive, any decisions you make are lacking in seriously important information, no?

No one has answered the original question, which makes this a philosophical discussion, either - Why Does Your Child Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?

Also, who said we are not an individual society, but a familial one? You better not be a Libertarian, because those comments smack of communism. (at the very least, communal-ism).
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:33:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:50:41 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:45:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:42:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
They deserve it only if you will it to them. If you don't, they have no moral claim to the wealth--no one has a moral claim to anyone's wealth that isnt contractually granted to them

It's contractually granted to them by default. It is assumed parents want their children to get their wealth if they make no will, because it's a common fact that it WILL go to them if they make no will.

That's basically theft.

Not really.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:18:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

If the parents die while the children are underage, do you really advocate the state seize the property and what, put the kids in a orphanage or on the street? If a family member cam care for the kids, you don't think my wealth should go to that relative to help pay expenses. If a man that works hard to provide for his family dies, you advocate taking away his assets and putting his family out on the street?

If you amassed no assets, should the state be able to do this without your consent?

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL - this means that those things which are outside their control, and being orphaned as a 4-year-old, I believe, qualifies, should be equal.

You're advocating for the tenet that all men ARE NOT created equal.

Now, once a man reaches the age of majority, equality ceases, but until they reach adulthood and have the right to forge their own destiny, how can someone advocate for this inequality and still purport to believe in freedom and liberty?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:35:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?"

We don't allocate money (at least our main economic principle) on what people deserve... sorry. If you want to live in a society like that, go to North Korea (even there, actually, that is most definitely not a reality). Deserve is a subjective term. I could ask: why does anyone deserve anything if they don't need it as much as somebody else?
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:29:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Taking all of your posts into consideration, riddle me this -

How is it possible for all men to be created equal if some are born with no wealth, and some are born into a massive inheritance?

Because the "all men are born equal" argument refers to rights. All men are born with the same rights, they aren't all born with the same chances of wealth or anything.

The massively idiotic proponent of Supply-Side economics and current monetary policy as Chief Economic Adviser to Ronald Reagan notwithstanding, doesn't your labor while you're alive, given that it allows your child better access to healthcare, nutrition, better schools, etc, already mean that you're work has been for the betterment of your child?

Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't will it away as you wish. No one except you deserves your wealth.

Why, after you are dead, should you be able to decide what is done with your money?

Because you're deciding before death what is to be done with your property

One assumes that the moment you are ceased to be alive, any decisions you make are lacking in seriously important information, no?

No one has answered the original question, which makes this a philosophical discussion, either - Why Does Your Child Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?

They dont deserve it unless you choose to give it to them.


Also, who said we are not an individual society, but a familial one? You better not be a Libertarian, because those comments smack of communism. (at the very least, communal-ism).
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 10:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:35:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?"

We don't allocate money (at least our main economic principle) on what people deserve... sorry. If you want to live in a society like that, go to North Korea (even there, actually, that is most definitely not a reality). Deserve is a subjective term. I could ask: why does anyone deserve anything if they don't need it as much as somebody else?

Oh, so in North Korea, on is allocated wealth based on the wealth one deserves to have?

This stinks of a meritocracy. Why are we so opposed to this North Korean Meritocracy?

Hail glorious leader and your gloriously libertarian form of government!!!
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 10:23:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 9:37:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:29:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Taking all of your posts into consideration, riddle me this -

How is it possible for all men to be created equal if some are born with no wealth, and some are born into a massive inheritance?

Because the "all men are born equal" argument refers to rights. All men are born with the same rights, they aren't all born with the same chances of wealth or anything.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


When using the term, "pursuit of happiness", to what were those who penned the DoI referring?

The massively idiotic proponent of Supply-Side economics and current monetary policy as Chief Economic Adviser to Ronald Reagan notwithstanding, doesn't your labor while you're alive, given that it allows your child better access to healthcare, nutrition, better schools, etc, already mean that you're work has been for the betterment of your child?

Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't will it away as you wish. No one except you deserves your wealth.

NO ONE BUT ME DESERVES MY WEALTH?!?!?

What are you, some pinko commie sympathizer?


Why, after you are dead, should you be able to decide what is done with your money?

Because you're deciding before death what is to be done with your property

How long before? I keep hearing what horrible predictors of the future humans are...this can't be good...

One assumes that the moment you are ceased to be alive, any decisions you make are lacking in seriously important information, no?

No one has answered the original question, which makes this a philosophical discussion, either - Why Does Your Child Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?

They dont deserve it unless you choose to give it to them.


Hold up, YOU JUST SAID, No one except you deserves your wealth.


So, which is it?


Also, who said we are not an individual society, but a familial one? You better not be a Libertarian, because those comments smack of communism. (at the very least, communal-ism).
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 10:40:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 10:23:00 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:37:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:29:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Taking all of your posts into consideration, riddle me this -

How is it possible for all men to be created equal if some are born with no wealth, and some are born into a massive inheritance?

Because the "all men are born equal" argument refers to rights. All men are born with the same rights, they aren't all born with the same chances of wealth or anything.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


When using the term, "pursuit of happiness", to what were those who penned the DoI referring?

Don't know and don't care. The "pursuit of happiness" is not a right, its rhetoric. Rights are solely negative.

The massively idiotic proponent of Supply-Side economics and current monetary policy as Chief Economic Adviser to Ronald Reagan notwithstanding, doesn't your labor while you're alive, given that it allows your child better access to healthcare, nutrition, better schools, etc, already mean that you're work has been for the betterment of your child?

Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't will it away as you wish. No one except you deserves your wealth.

NO ONE BUT ME DESERVES MY WEALTH?!?!?

What are you, some pinko commie sympathizer?

Uhm no? Is that supposed to be an argument?


Why, after you are dead, should you be able to decide what is done with your money?

Because you're deciding before death what is to be done with your property

How long before? I keep hearing what horrible predictors of the future humans are...this can't be good...

However long you want. I can write up my will at 18 right now if I want to, it doesnt matter. Again, this isnt a response.

One assumes that the moment you are ceased to be alive, any decisions you make are lacking in seriously important information, no?

No one has answered the original question, which makes this a philosophical discussion, either - Why Does Your Child Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?

They dont deserve it unless you choose to give it to them.


Hold up, YOU JUST SAID, No one except you deserves your wealth.


So, which is it?

Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. No one deserves your wealth except you, and you can do with it what you wish. This includes pissing it away or giving it to whoeevr you want


Also, who said we are not an individual society, but a familial one? You better not be a Libertarian, because those comments smack of communism. (at the very least, communal-ism).
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:07:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 10:40:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 10:23:00 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:37:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:29:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Taking all of your posts into consideration, riddle me this -

How is it possible for all men to be created equal if some are born with no wealth, and some are born into a massive inheritance?

Because the "all men are born equal" argument refers to rights. All men are born with the same rights, they aren't all born with the same chances of wealth or anything.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


When using the term, "pursuit of happiness", to what were those who penned the DoI referring?

Don't know and don't care. The "pursuit of happiness" is not a right, its rhetoric. Rights are solely negative.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

First of all, if I can read English, and I believe I can, your opinions of what a right is and isn't notwithstanding, that appears to me to be not only a right, but an ENUMERATED RIGHT.

I therefore pose the question once again, what did those who wrote the DoI (and Constitution, since it appears there as well) mean when they wrote, "the pursuit of Happiness."?

Second, you don't know and you don't care? So, what you're saying here is that you're not just ignorant, but also apathetic?

Are there any other laws (since again, this is in the Constitution as well) that you feel free to ignore at your whimsy? Could you list them?

The massively idiotic proponent of Supply-Side economics and current monetary policy as Chief Economic Adviser to Ronald Reagan notwithstanding, doesn't your labor while you're alive, given that it allows your child better access to healthcare, nutrition, better schools, etc, already mean that you're work has been for the betterment of your child?

Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't will it away as you wish. No one except you deserves your wealth.

NO ONE BUT ME DESERVES MY WEALTH?!?!?

What are you, some pinko commie sympathizer?

Uhm no? Is that supposed to be an argument?

You made the same statement I did. So, you agree with me, correct?


Why, after you are dead, should you be able to decide what is done with your money?

Because you're deciding before death what is to be done with your property

How long before? I keep hearing what horrible predictors of the future humans are...this can't be good...

However long you want. I can write up my will at 18 right now if I want to, it doesnt matter. Again, this isnt a response.

It's philosophical. SHOULD you be able to make decisions which survive your death?

What rights does a dead man have, anyway?

One assumes that the moment you are ceased to be alive, any decisions you make are lacking in seriously important information, no?

No one has answered the original question, which makes this a philosophical discussion, either - Why Does Your Child Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?

They dont deserve it unless you choose to give it to them.


Hold up, YOU JUST SAID, No one except you deserves your wealth.


So, which is it?

Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. No one deserves your wealth except you, and you can do with it what you wish. This includes pissing it away or giving it to whoeevr you want

While you're alive, perhaps, but what right do you have to anything after your death? I don't care when the contract was entered into, it was entered into so that you could dictate decisions after your death.

Do dead men have the right to dictate anything? I know of no law which grants rights to a dead man (in the case of a will, there is an artificial entity known as an "Estate" which carries out your post-death orders...where is this right to an estate listed? Oh yeah...in that contradictory clause about which you "don't know and don't care".).

Does it bother anyone when they have to be as hypocritical as you are being currently simply to justify a policy which is a complete anathema to everything else in which they purport to believe?


Also, who said we are not an individual society, but a familial one? You better not be a Libertarian, because those comments smack of communism. (at the very least, communal-ism).
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 11:07:33 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/8/2013 10:40:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 10:23:00 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:37:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 9:29:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Taking all of your posts into consideration, riddle me this -

How is it possible for all men to be created equal if some are born with no wealth, and some are born into a massive inheritance?

Because the "all men are born equal" argument refers to rights. All men are born with the same rights, they aren't all born with the same chances of wealth or anything.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


When using the term, "pursuit of happiness", to what were those who penned the DoI referring?

Don't know and don't care. The "pursuit of happiness" is not a right, its rhetoric. Rights are solely negative.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

First of all, if I can read English, and I believe I can, your opinions of what a right is and isn't notwithstanding, that appears to me to be not only a right, but an ENUMERATED RIGHT.

No it isn't. The DOI has no legal authority whatsoever in the current US system.

I therefore pose the question once again, what did those who wrote the DoI (and Constitution, since it appears there as well) mean when they wrote, "the pursuit of Happiness."?

Well considering the original wording was "pursuit of property" probably something like that. But this has literally 0 relevance to what we should/shouldnt do.


Second, you don't know and you don't care? So, what you're saying here is that you're not just ignorant, but also apathetic?

No, I'm saying it's irrelevant to current policy decisions/right or wrong.

Are there any other laws (since again, this is in the Constitution as well) that you feel free to ignore at your whimsy? Could you list them?

It isn't in the constitution, and the constitution has no legitimacy anyway. But even accepting the constitution, nowhere is the pursuit of happiness found.

The massively idiotic proponent of Supply-Side economics and current monetary policy as Chief Economic Adviser to Ronald Reagan notwithstanding, doesn't your labor while you're alive, given that it allows your child better access to healthcare, nutrition, better schools, etc, already mean that you're work has been for the betterment of your child?

Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't will it away as you wish. No one except you deserves your wealth.

NO ONE BUT ME DESERVES MY WEALTH?!?!?

What are you, some pinko commie sympathizer?

Uhm no? Is that supposed to be an argument?

You made the same statement I did. So, you agree with me, correct?

Sort of. The children only deserve your wealth if you give it to them. Make sense? If you will your wealth to someone else you aren't violating their rights--they arent entitled to the wealth at all outside you willing it.


Why, after you are dead, should you be able to decide what is done with your money?

Because you're deciding before death what is to be done with your property

How long before? I keep hearing what horrible predictors of the future humans are...this can't be good...

However long you want. I can write up my will at 18 right now if I want to, it doesnt matter. Again, this isnt a response.

It's philosophical. SHOULD you be able to make decisions which survive your death?

They are decisions made before your death...surely you aren't arguing that all contracts are null once a death occurs, are you? The issue is jusst taken up with the heirs

What rights does a dead man have, anyway?


One assumes that the moment you are ceased to be alive, any decisions you make are lacking in seriously important information, no?

No one has answered the original question, which makes this a philosophical discussion, either - Why Does Your Child Deserve The Wealth You Have Amassed But Not Spent at the moment you die?

They dont deserve it unless you choose to give it to them.


Hold up, YOU JUST SAID, No one except you deserves your wealth.


So, which is it?

Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. No one deserves your wealth except you, and you can do with it what you wish. This includes pissing it away or giving it to whoeevr you want

While you're alive, perhaps, but what right do you have to anything after your death?

It's a contract made before your death.

I don't care when the contract was entered into, it was entered into so that you could dictate decisions after your death.

I dont see how you fail to understand that its saying"after I die, you get my wealth". It isnt dictating a decision after your death--its a decision made before your death. The only person with a right to dictate what happens to your wealth is you. Thats exactly what a will does.

Do dead men have the right to dictate anything? I know of no law which grants rights to a dead man (in the case of a will, there is an artificial entity known as an "Estate" which carries out your post-death orders...where is this right to an estate listed? Oh yeah...in that contradictory clause about which you "don't know and don't care".).

Rights dont come from the constitution.


Does it bother anyone when they have to be as hypocritical as you are being currently simply to justify a policy which is a complete anathema to everything else in which they purport to believe?

How am I being hypocritical? Also, are you capable of having a discussion without insulting people?



Also, who said we are not an individual society, but a familial one? You better not be a Libertarian, because those comments smack of communism. (at the very least, communal-ism).
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:24:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
would you like to debate inheritance rights? I've been eager for a debate with a real opponent since I last debated royal like a month ago
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:31:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:50:41 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:45:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:42:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
They deserve it only if you will it to them. If you don't, they have no moral claim to the wealth--no one has a moral claim to anyone's wealth that isnt contractually granted to them

It's contractually granted to them by default. It is assumed parents want their children to get their wealth if they make no will, because it's a common fact that it WILL go to them if they make no will.

That's basically theft.

More like grave robbing.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 2:34:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 11:24:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
would you like to debate inheritance rights? I've been eager for a debate with a real opponent since I last debated royal like a month ago

The Fool: For or Against?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 3:15:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 2:42:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nothing has anything to do with "deserving".

It's all a web of emotional tendencies.

I think it's more instinctual than emotional, but why not discuss if the recipients are deserving or not?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 3:36:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 11:18:46 PM, thett3 wrote:

No it isn't. The DOI has no legal authority whatsoever in the current US system.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America'


Are you absolutely positive about that?

http://www.nccs.net...

Well considering the original wording was "pursuit of property" probably something like that. But this has literally 0 relevance to what we should/shouldnt do.

WHOA THERE, TIGER...hold up a minute. The established law of the sovereign in which one lives has absolutely no relevance on what one should or shouldn't do?

Laws exist against murder so that you can ignore them when it pleases you?

This seems like a strange statement...

No, I'm saying it's irrelevant to current policy decisions/right or wrong.

You keep saying that, but you have nothing with which to back up your statements. Do you KNOW this to be true, or do you just BELIEVE it to be so?

It isn't in the constitution, and the constitution has no legitimacy anyway. But even accepting the constitution, nowhere is the pursuit of happiness found.

You're right...it the Constitution, they straight switched Happiness back to property, so it's even more germane to the conversation.

All men are supposed to be born equal in terms of property, and yet some have massive land grants awaiting them before they shoot out the womb. How is a man created equally under such inequitable circumstances?

Sort of. The children only deserve your wealth if you give it to them. Make sense? If you will your wealth to someone else you aren't violating their rights--they arent entitled to the wealth at all outside you willing it.

If you win the lottery, do you deserve to win? Weren't you stupid to buy the ticket in the 1st place, given the odds, thus showing a recklessness with money such that you deserve not to win?

Why does one "man" deserve to be born poor and another man rich, simply because someone else, from another generation, having no right to govern the future generation, wills it to be so?

They are decisions made before your death...surely you aren't arguing that all contracts are null once a death occurs, are you? The issue is jusst taken up with the heirs

If the contract is made specifically such that it only goes into effect AFTER death, yes. Yes I am saying those contracts should all be null and void.

If a contract has no requirement for a death to occur, but a death occurs anyway, then no. That contract should be fulfilled if possible, but a contract specifically requiring death to be fulfilled is null because people have no rights after they die.

It's a contract made before your death.

Which requires your death to execute (no pun intended).

I dont see how you fail to understand that its saying"after I die, you get my wealth". It isnt dictating a decision after your death--its a decision made before your death. The only person with a right to dictate what happens to your wealth is you. Thats exactly what a will does.

I understand it just fine. What I'm saying is that when alive, you may do with your wealth whatever you wish. You like clown porn? Then sink your money into a failing clown porn production company.

Once you die, however, as all of your other rights cease, so does your ability to control your wealth.

If not, why not?

What rights does a man have after death? What right does a man have to enter into a contact they know can only be fulfilled if they perish?

Rights dont come from the constitution.

Some do.

How am I being hypocritical? Also, are you capable of having a discussion without insulting people?

When I'm talking to someone rational I don't seem to have an issue.

You're making assertions about property right after saying it doesn't matter and you don't care about it.

You need the clause for part of what you're saying to be true, and you need to dismiss it for the rest to be true.

It's either a logical fallacy or it is intellectually dishonest.

Either way, it is worthy of insult.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 3:43:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 3:15:19 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/9/2013 2:42:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nothing has anything to do with "deserving".

It's all a web of emotional tendencies.

I think it's more instinctual than emotional, but why not discuss if the recipients are deserving or not?

Nothing wrong there. Carry on.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 6:36:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:31:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The residual, unspent income you have amassed upon your death?

This child has done nothing to earn this money.

Money which is unearned is typically squandered.

Why is it more efficient, morally correct, ethical, whatever, to give this money to someone simply because they share genetic material with the person who earned it rather than release it back into the economy where people with superior ideas and skills will have a chance to earn it through their innovation and entrepreneurship?

Its basically like a gift. I have it set so that when I die, my wife gets everything, or when we both die, it goes in a trust fund for our kids that will not be accessible for 10 years.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:19:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 6:36:35 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:31:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The residual, unspent income you have amassed upon your death?

This child has done nothing to earn this money.

Money which is unearned is typically squandered.

Why is it more efficient, morally correct, ethical, whatever, to give this money to someone simply because they share genetic material with the person who earned it rather than release it back into the economy where people with superior ideas and skills will have a chance to earn it through their innovation and entrepreneurship?

Its basically like a gift. I have it set so that when I die, my wife gets everything, or when we both die, it goes in a trust fund for our kids that will not be accessible for 10 years.

your wife get nothing. your wife became an equal owner in your wealth when you entered into the community property (aka communist) contract known as marriage.

BTW - gift giving destroys wealth in the exact same way, and the exact same amount theft does.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:52:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:31:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The residual, unspent income you have amassed upon your death?

This child has done nothing to earn this money.

Money which is unearned is typically squandered.

Why is it more efficient, morally correct, ethical, whatever, to give this money to someone simply because they share genetic material with the person who earned it rather than release it back into the economy where people with superior ideas and skills will have a chance to earn it through their innovation and entrepreneurship?

Love.