Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is the willing of property justifiable?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This thread evolved from a long discussion about wealth redistribution:

http://www.debate.org...

My point was that the death of an individual allows for the perfect "justifiable" instance of public wealth redistribution for social causes.

I'm not advocating a 100% estate tax...merely justifying using the estate tax for these reasons. The logic also extends to the gift tax.

The question then becomes, is the willing of property to other individuals justifiable? Why or why not?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 8:14:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to add clarification, I am questioning the rights of an individual to will property to others. In the case of the estate tax, it is because the person is dead, and thus no longer has individual rights. In the case of the gift tax, it is to 1) prevent clever circumvention of the estate tax, and also 2) because of the fundamental reason that the recipient didn't "earn" the gift, right? Because if they did, they would have been paid for whatever they did to earn the willed property.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:56:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There was a whole big thread a while back where I made arguments based on Paine's 'Agrarian Justice' and the fact that corpses don't have rights. I'll try and find it to link it, in case anyone is interested. I ended up advocating universal organ harvests in principle, but not in practice. Fun stuff.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 8:14:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to add clarification, I am questioning the rights of an individual to will property to others. In the case of the estate tax, it is because the person is dead, and thus no longer has individual rights. In the case of the gift tax, it is to 1) prevent clever circumvention of the estate tax, and also 2) because of the fundamental reason that the recipient didn't "earn" the gift, right? Because if they did, they would have been paid for whatever they did to earn the willed property.

So they can't "give" $500,000 away, but they could buy a bic pen for $500,000 and it would be called the free market?

The basic premise for which the free market is justified is that you ought to have the right to do whatever you want with your property (so long as it doesn't infringe upon others). This includes buying, selling, or gifting. If I have the right to buy something for any cost I deem fair, or sell for that matter, then $0 should be allowed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here it is: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone wants to bring up any of my points, I think that it's a fun topic to discuss.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 10:03:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Summing up my thoughts on the matter: "The will is an instrument that the government offers as a chance to extend one's purview over an earthly demesne a little past its rightful close, in exchange for a relatively small cut."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
hereiam2005
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 10:36:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Premise 1: capitalism is the foundation of society.
Premise 2: one of the natural right is property rights:

1) the right to use the good.

2) the right to earn income from the good.

3) the right to transfer the good to others.

4) the right to enforcement of property rights i.e. other cannot legally steal your property.

--------------------
1) and 2) are trivial.
3) If one has no right to transfer the good to other, then the property has no value. If all property has no value, then nothing has value, thus capitalism fails.
4) If others can legally take away one's property at will, then the property also has no value, and thus, capitalism fails.

Thus, from 3, one has the right to transfer the good to others.

Willing is one form of the right to transfer - thus is justifiable. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 10:54:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 10:36:21 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
Premise 1: capitalism is the foundation of society.
Premise 2: one of the natural right is property rights:

1) the right to use the good.

2) the right to earn income from the good.

3) the right to transfer the good to others.

4) the right to enforcement of property rights i.e. other cannot legally steal your property.

--------------------
1) and 2) are trivial.
3) If one has no right to transfer the good to other, then the property has no value. If all property has no value, then nothing has value, thus capitalism fails.
4) If others can legally take away one's property at will, then the property also has no value, and thus, capitalism fails.

Thus, from 3, one has the right to transfer the good to others.

Willing is one form of the right to transfer - thus is justifiable. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.

How is premise two justified? What I find impossible to do is to apply any valid justification to a corpse.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
hereiam2005
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:06:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 10:54:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:36:21 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
Premise 1: capitalism is the foundation of society.
Premise 2: one of the natural right is property rights:

1) the right to use the good.

2) the right to earn income from the good.

3) the right to transfer the good to others.

4) the right to enforcement of property rights i.e. other cannot legally steal your property.

--------------------
1) and 2) are trivial.
3) If one has no right to transfer the good to other, then the property has no value. If all property has no value, then nothing has value, thus capitalism fails.
4) If others can legally take away one's property at will, then the property also has no value, and thus, capitalism fails.

Thus, from 3, one has the right to transfer the good to others.

Willing is one form of the right to transfer - thus is justifiable. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.

How is premise two justified? What I find impossible to do is to apply any valid justification to a corpse.

Well I did not argue for a corpse - a dead person does not give out wills, a living - and legally sane - person does.
The will simply authorize the transfer of property to some specific third party, at a latter date - akin to a (future) contract.

"A contract for services which are not personal in their nature, but which may be performed by the assignee or the successors of the promisor, is not discharged by the death of either party"
http://chestofbooks.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:57:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 11:06:41 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:54:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:36:21 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
Premise 1: capitalism is the foundation of society.
Premise 2: one of the natural right is property rights:

1) the right to use the good.

2) the right to earn income from the good.

3) the right to transfer the good to others.

4) the right to enforcement of property rights i.e. other cannot legally steal your property.

--------------------
1) and 2) are trivial.
3) If one has no right to transfer the good to other, then the property has no value. If all property has no value, then nothing has value, thus capitalism fails.
4) If others can legally take away one's property at will, then the property also has no value, and thus, capitalism fails.

Thus, from 3, one has the right to transfer the good to others.

Willing is one form of the right to transfer - thus is justifiable. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.

How is premise two justified? What I find impossible to do is to apply any valid justification to a corpse.

Well I did not argue for a corpse - a dead person does not give out wills, a living - and legally sane - person does.
The will simply authorize the transfer of property to some specific third party, at a latter date - akin to a (future) contract.

"A contract for services which are not personal in their nature, but which may be performed by the assignee or the successors of the promisor, is not discharged by the death of either party"
http://chestofbooks.com...

The thing is, I don't see why such contracts should exist, on the basis of individual rights, after an individual's death. The existence of such a contract is purely at the pleasure of the government, and so the taking of a cut cannot be said to abrogate any rights.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
hereiam2005
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 12:17:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 11:57:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:06:41 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:54:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:36:21 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
Premise 1: capitalism is the foundation of society.
Premise 2: one of the natural right is property rights:

1) the right to use the good.

2) the right to earn income from the good.

3) the right to transfer the good to others.

4) the right to enforcement of property rights i.e. other cannot legally steal your property.

--------------------
1) and 2) are trivial.
3) If one has no right to transfer the good to other, then the property has no value. If all property has no value, then nothing has value, thus capitalism fails.
4) If others can legally take away one's property at will, then the property also has no value, and thus, capitalism fails.

Thus, from 3, one has the right to transfer the good to others.

Willing is one form of the right to transfer - thus is justifiable. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.

How is premise two justified? What I find impossible to do is to apply any valid justification to a corpse.

Well I did not argue for a corpse - a dead person does not give out wills, a living - and legally sane - person does.
The will simply authorize the transfer of property to some specific third party, at a latter date - akin to a (future) contract.

"A contract for services which are not personal in their nature, but which may be performed by the assignee or the successors of the promisor, is not discharged by the death of either party"
http://chestofbooks.com...

The thing is, I don't see why such contracts should exist, on the basis of individual rights, after an individual's death.

Why not?
1) The contract was agreed upon and legally binding prior to the death of either party.
2) The contract does not involve the government.
3) The contract does not dissolve upon the death of either party.

The existence of such a contract is purely at the pleasure of the government, :

The existence of such a contract is not at the pleasure of the government - it does not in fact involve the government at all. The contract is legally binding only between the parties involved. If not, then should all future contracts be dissolved by the death of one party? Then having future contracts is an extremely risky business. Some forms of future contracts, like bonds or shares, lasts centuries - legally binding without the fear of death of either party is important for the integrity of capitalism.

Such future contracts are legal, and justifiable - the government cannot act at its pleasure simply because it find the contract not to its liking.

and so the taking of a cut cannot be said to abrogate any rights.

I have never said anything about the government's right to have a cut in the process. The government has the right of taxation to regulate commerce. Contract is one kind of commerce, thus it is the government's right to tax inheritance.

This argument was formed as a response to the resolution: Is the willing of properties justifiable.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 1:25:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 11:57:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:06:41 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:54:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:36:21 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
Premise 1: capitalism is the foundation of society.
Premise 2: one of the natural right is property rights:

1) the right to use the good.

2) the right to earn income from the good.

3) the right to transfer the good to others.

4) the right to enforcement of property rights i.e. other cannot legally steal your property.

--------------------
1) and 2) are trivial.
3) If one has no right to transfer the good to other, then the property has no value. If all property has no value, then nothing has value, thus capitalism fails.
4) If others can legally take away one's property at will, then the property also has no value, and thus, capitalism fails.

Thus, from 3, one has the right to transfer the good to others.

Willing is one form of the right to transfer - thus is justifiable. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.

How is premise two justified? What I find impossible to do is to apply any valid justification to a corpse.

Well I did not argue for a corpse - a dead person does not give out wills, a living - and legally sane - person does.
The will simply authorize the transfer of property to some specific third party, at a latter date - akin to a (future) contract.

"A contract for services which are not personal in their nature, but which may be performed by the assignee or the successors of the promisor, is not discharged by the death of either party"
http://chestofbooks.com...

The thing is, I don't see why such contracts should exist, on the basis of individual rights, after an individual's death. The existence of such a contract is purely at the pleasure of the government, and so the taking of a cut cannot be said to abrogate any rights.

God I swear fully half my brain found its way across the internet and into your head, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 1:46:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 12:17:57 AM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:57:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:06:41 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:54:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/4/2013 10:36:21 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
Premise 1: capitalism is the foundation of society.
Premise 2: one of the natural right is property rights:

1) the right to use the good.

2) the right to earn income from the good.

3) the right to transfer the good to others.

4) the right to enforcement of property rights i.e. other cannot legally steal your property.

--------------------
1) and 2) are trivial.
3) If one has no right to transfer the good to other, then the property has no value. If all property has no value, then nothing has value, thus capitalism fails.
4) If others can legally take away one's property at will, then the property also has no value, and thus, capitalism fails.

Thus, from 3, one has the right to transfer the good to others.

Willing is one form of the right to transfer - thus is justifiable. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.

How is premise two justified? What I find impossible to do is to apply any valid justification to a corpse.

Well I did not argue for a corpse - a dead person does not give out wills, a living - and legally sane - person does.
The will simply authorize the transfer of property to some specific third party, at a latter date - akin to a (future) contract.

"A contract for services which are not personal in their nature, but which may be performed by the assignee or the successors of the promisor, is not discharged by the death of either party"
http://chestofbooks.com...

The above source only applies to non-personal contracts. A will is about as personal as you can get, thus the above stipulations do not apply.

The importance of this distinction IMHO is that it restricts this death provision to business usage, meaning that the contracts that obligate a business would indeed survive the death of one of its principles.

The thing is, I don't see why such contracts should exist, on the basis of individual rights, after an individual's death.

Why not?
1) The contract was agreed upon and legally binding prior to the death of either party.
2) The contract does not involve the government.
3) The contract does not dissolve upon the death of either party.

The existence of such a contract is purely at the pleasure of the government, :

The existence of such a contract is not at the pleasure of the government - it does not in fact involve the government at all. The contract is legally binding only between the parties involved. If not, then should all future contracts be dissolved by the death of one party? Then having future contracts is an extremely risky business. Some forms of future contracts, like bonds or shares, lasts centuries - legally binding without the fear of death of either party is important for the integrity of capitalism.

Such future contracts are legal, and justifiable - the government cannot act at its pleasure simply because it find the contract not to its liking.

It is at the pleasure of the government. The government presides over probate to determine valid heirs, and any "legally binding" provision is enforced by the monopoly on violence that is inherent in any government action.

The rest of your argument again applies only to businesses, and not personal matters.

and so the taking of a cut cannot be said to abrogate any rights.

I have never said anything about the government's right to have a cut in the process. The government has the right of taxation to regulate commerce. Contract is one kind of commerce, thus it is the government's right to tax inheritance.

This argument was formed as a response to the resolution: Is the willing of properties justifiable.

The "government cut" is the estate tax.

Willing private property has nothing to do with commerce.

I don't understand the bolded. Contracts are contracts, and commerce is commerce. There are contracts in commerce, but that doesn't make contracts a "kind" of commerce. Contracts cannot exist without law and enforcement...the government's role in upholding contracts is critical to the contract's veracity. Commerce on the other hand could be as simple as you going to your neighbor with a pig to exchange for that apple tree over there.

---

The argument I am making is that once a person dies, what makes that person's property "private," i.e. his life, is lost. One cannot privatize anything if there is no entity that can claim the property in its name. Thus, what was once private property becomes subject to public discretion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 1:54:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:58:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:14:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to add clarification, I am questioning the rights of an individual to will property to others. In the case of the estate tax, it is because the person is dead, and thus no longer has individual rights. In the case of the gift tax, it is to 1) prevent clever circumvention of the estate tax, and also 2) because of the fundamental reason that the recipient didn't "earn" the gift, right? Because if they did, they would have been paid for whatever they did to earn the willed property.

So they can't "give" $500,000 away, but they could buy a bic pen for $500,000 and it would be called the free market?

I've seen this argument in the past and was able to argue against it, but the logic escapes me at the moment. There is some sort of provision that makes de facto transfers like this a violation of gift tax law.

The basic premise for which the free market is justified is that you ought to have the right to do whatever you want with your property (so long as it doesn't infringe upon others). This includes buying, selling, or gifting. If I have the right to buy something for any cost I deem fair, or sell for that matter, then $0 should be allowed.

There is no such thing as a completely free market. There will always be regulation of some sort.

Example, say someone is about to file for bankruptcy, and has a car made of solid gold. They gift the car to their Aunt Jenny, file for bankruptcy, and then Aunt Jenny gifts the car back to the person.

In a "free market", you would have the right to do something like this, but in any practical system, such intentional dodging of creditors would be considered criminal behavior.

Therefore, there are always restrictions of some sort on gifting.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 1:58:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Here it is: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone wants to bring up any of my points, I think that it's a fun topic to discuss.

lol, I remember this thread, but I certainly didn't recall the organ harvesting. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
hereiam2005
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 4:08:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 1:46:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://chestofbooks.com...

The above source only applies to non-personal contracts. A will is about as personal as you can get, thus the above stipulations do not apply.

The importance of this distinction IMHO is that it restricts this death provision to business usage, meaning that the contracts that obligate a business would indeed survive the death of one of its principles.

This is a misunderstanding of the non-personal clause: non personal is everything that can be satisfactory and equally performed in his stead by the assignee or the successors of the promisor

A will is simply a transfer of property - which is strictly non personal. If one want to prove that a will is personal, one has to prove that it is not a kind of transfer of property.

Anything that involves assets has been found to be non-personal, and thus, cannot be voided upon the death of either party.

To quote the source:
Thus, a contract of guaranty,2 or of sale,3 even if the article which is sold is far more useful or interesting to the purchaser than to his personal representative,4 or a contract between a landlord and tenant,5 a covenant to rebuild leased property in case of fire,6 a contract to repair,7 or a contract to renew,8 are none of them discharged by the death of either party. A contract for future repairs of a partition fence, made between adjoining property owners, has been held to be discharged by the death of one of them.9 A contract of fire insurance,10 including mutual insurance,11 or a contract to take and pay for a certain amount of water annually,12 or a deed of trust upon growing crops to secure advancements,13 are none of them discharged by the death of either party. A contract in settlement of a bastardy suit,14 or a contract of pledge,15 or a contract giving the debtor the right to discharge his debt by sawing lumber,16 are none of them discharged by the death of a party. A contract to pay money so as to satisfy the needs of the payee as nearly as possible is not personal in character and is not discharged by the death of the payee.17


It is at the pleasure of the government. The government presides over probate to determine valid heirs, and any "legally binding" provision is enforced by the monopoly on violence that is inherent in any government action.

Not at all: the government is legally and constitutionally bound to provide enforcement. If the government dislike a person, he is not at the pleasure of the government; the government cannot simply take his life or his property or his freedom of speech simply because it want to - he is legally entitled to his life, property, and freedom of speech, under the framework of the law, and he must be judged by a jury of his peer for the taking of them.

The government determination of a valid heir may only take place when no will exist, or a will was shown to be invalid. As such, the concept of will does not involve the government's decision, only its legal enforcement of contract.


The rest of your argument again applies only to businesses, and not personal matters.


Not at all. Please find the source full of personal matters example: "a contract between a landlord and tenant, or a contract to take and pay for a certain amount of water annually, or a deed of trust upon growing crops to secure advancements, a contract to repair, or a contract to renew, are none of them discharged by the death of either party, A contract in settlement of a bastardy suit,14 or a contract of pledge,15 or a contract giving the debtor the right to discharge his debt by sawing lumber,16 are none of them discharged by the death of a party. A contract to pay money so as to satisfy the needs of the payee as nearly as possible is not personal in character and is not discharged by the death of the payee.17" all of those are very personal contracts, and none involve business.


The "government cut" is the estate tax.

I never state the government should not be able to tax estate.
My resolution was - willing of property is justified.

Willing private property has nothing to do with commerce.


It has everything to do with commerce - commerce are all form of trade, including transfer of property - like you've said, trade a pig for a tree. Buying a loaf of bread got taxed - it does involve transfer of wealth.

I don't understand the bolded. Contracts are contracts, and commerce is commerce. There are contracts in commerce, but that doesn't make contracts a "kind" of commerce. Contracts cannot exist without law and enforcement...the government's role in upholding contracts is critical to the contract's veracity. Commerce on the other hand could be as simple as you going to your neighbor with a pig to exchange for that apple tree over there.


Yup, I was wrong, contract is an agreement, not a trade.

---

The argument I am making is that once a person dies, what makes that person's property "private," i.e. his life, is lost. One cannot privatize anything if there is no entity that can claim the property in its name. Thus, what was once private property becomes subject to public discretion.

The argument I am making is that the person made his will before he died. An estate - a legal entity - is immediately formed at the time of death, which held the property of the deceased. The will - a legally binding agreement, which by definition a contract, will delegate the distribution of the testator's estate to the executor with the condition of executing his will. The executor, after paying off all debts accrued by the testator, will then be responsible to distribute the estate in accordance with the testator's will.

The idea is that when a person die, a separate legal entity (the estate) actually hold the property of the decease, not the actual corpse.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 5:14:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This thread evolved from a long discussion about wealth redistribution:

http://www.debate.org...

My point was that the death of an individual allows for the perfect "justifiable" instance of public wealth redistribution for social causes.

I'm not advocating a 100% estate tax...merely justifying using the estate tax for these reasons. The logic also extends to the gift tax.

The question then becomes, is the willing of property to other individuals justifiable? Why or why not?

I don't understand why it is justified, what possible claim does the government have on someone's property ever? Simply because it's there? I see it as an opportunity for the government, but not a justifiable one. You never once make an argument on it being justified, you just say it is, whereas a will that legally documents the intentions of a property owner is justified disposition of that property.

There is a difference between an opportunity, and a justified action. After one's death, there is no natural default that the government should get anything at all.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 6:03:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 5:14:04 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This thread evolved from a long discussion about wealth redistribution:

http://www.debate.org...

My point was that the death of an individual allows for the perfect "justifiable" instance of public wealth redistribution for social causes.

I'm not advocating a 100% estate tax...merely justifying using the estate tax for these reasons. The logic also extends to the gift tax.

The question then becomes, is the willing of property to other individuals justifiable? Why or why not?

I don't understand why it is justified, what possible claim does the government have on someone's property ever? Simply because it's there? I see it as an opportunity for the government, but not a justifiable one. You never once make an argument on it being justified, you just say it is, whereas a will that legally documents the intentions of a property owner is justified disposition of that property.

There is a difference between an opportunity, and a justified action. After one's death, there is no natural default that the government should get anything at all.

The gist is that, once you're dead, you don't own anything. A corpse doesn't have rights, and cannot own property. All of the arguments for property rights only apply to a living person. When the government enforces a will, they're going above and beyond rights to give a person extra, unjustified control off their wealth past the point where they have any right to it.. At this point, taxation is morally sound.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 6:11:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 6:03:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/5/2013 5:14:04 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This thread evolved from a long discussion about wealth redistribution:

http://www.debate.org...

My point was that the death of an individual allows for the perfect "justifiable" instance of public wealth redistribution for social causes.

I'm not advocating a 100% estate tax...merely justifying using the estate tax for these reasons. The logic also extends to the gift tax.

The question then becomes, is the willing of property to other individuals justifiable? Why or why not?

I don't understand why it is justified, what possible claim does the government have on someone's property ever? Simply because it's there? I see it as an opportunity for the government, but not a justifiable one. You never once make an argument on it being justified, you just say it is, whereas a will that legally documents the intentions of a property owner is justified disposition of that property.

There is a difference between an opportunity, and a justified action. After one's death, there is no natural default that the government should get anything at all.

The gist is that, once you're dead, you don't own anything. A corpse doesn't have rights, and cannot own property. All of the arguments for property rights only apply to a living person. When the government enforces a will, they're going above and beyond rights to give a person extra, unjustified control off their wealth past the point where they have any right to it.. At this point, taxation is morally sound.

The point of a will is to transfer property so that the corpse doesn't own anything. Also, why is it defacto the property of the government, what is the actual justification that the government should get it? How is it unjustified control of wealth? You make zero arguments that says that the government is justified to take what isn't theirs. Because you say it has it, doesn't mean it actually does.
hereiam2005
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 6:14:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 6:03:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/5/2013 5:14:04 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This thread evolved from a long discussion about wealth redistribution:

http://www.debate.org...

My point was that the death of an individual allows for the perfect "justifiable" instance of public wealth redistribution for social causes.

I'm not advocating a 100% estate tax...merely justifying using the estate tax for these reasons. The logic also extends to the gift tax.

The question then becomes, is the willing of property to other individuals justifiable? Why or why not?

I don't understand why it is justified, what possible claim does the government have on someone's property ever? Simply because it's there? I see it as an opportunity for the government, but not a justifiable one. You never once make an argument on it being justified, you just say it is, whereas a will that legally documents the intentions of a property owner is justified disposition of that property.

There is a difference between an opportunity, and a justified action. After one's death, there is no natural default that the government should get anything at all.

The gist is that, once you're dead, you don't own anything. A corpse doesn't have rights, and cannot own property. All of the arguments for property rights only apply to a living person. When the government enforces a will, they're going above and beyond rights to give a person extra, unjustified control off their wealth past the point where they have any right to it.. At this point, taxation is morally sound.

Well, nothing can stop people to transfer there wealth to a legal entity right before their death by way of a future contract, and delegate some other people to act on the legal entity as per the deceased instruction. Which is the way estates operates.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:36:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Rights are nonsense, and natural rights are nonsense on stilts" I think I should mention that quote now. The first part I disagree with slightly, but the second is more defensible.

Where did natural rights come from? I never see a satisfactory answer to this. The intuitive point is "Nature". If so, then we should really all know what they are, as we all have them from the same source and have the same foundational rights. Yet even with the most obvious rights, like the right to self-determination is horribly challenged for centuries. Can I cede from my state? Can I cede from my state yet still live inside it? Can I cede from my own nation? Can I form my own government with it being inherently legitimate?

Or the natural right to property. Can I just "claim" any land? Like can I claim the land of Venus? Do I have to work on it to claim it? Do I have to both own it and work on it? If so, what is "owned" and "unowned" property? All this needs appeal without the state, otherwise it's not a natural right but an institutional one in my view.

The right to property is institutional. We get it from the fact that we [want to]own property, and respect others owning property. It is the right of security from another infringing on our property [ignoring extreme circumstances debatably].

Without natural rights being thrown about, the nature of property rights and what one can do with it becomes a lot clearer. So can anyone replace "natural rights" with some other terms?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 10:17:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 8:36:39 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
"Rights are nonsense, and natural rights are nonsense on stilts" I think I should mention that quote now. The first part I disagree with slightly, but the second is more defensible.

Where did natural rights come from? I never see a satisfactory answer to this. The intuitive point is "Nature". If so, then we should really all know what they are, as we all have them from the same source and have the same foundational rights. Yet even with the most obvious rights, like the right to self-determination is horribly challenged for centuries. Can I cede from my state? Can I cede from my state yet still live inside it? Can I cede from my own nation? Can I form my own government with it being inherently legitimate?

Or the natural right to property. Can I just "claim" any land? Like can I claim the land of Venus? Do I have to work on it to claim it? Do I have to both own it and work on it? If so, what is "owned" and "unowned" property? All this needs appeal without the state, otherwise it's not a natural right but an institutional one in my view.

The right to property is institutional. We get it from the fact that we [want to]own property, and respect others owning property. It is the right of security from another infringing on our property [ignoring extreme circumstances debatably].

Without natural rights being thrown about, the nature of property rights and what one can do with it becomes a lot clearer. So can anyone replace "natural rights" with some other terms?

So your justification for the state taking property is based on your belief that there is no such thing as a natural right, and ultimately all things belong to the state? Do you belong to the state?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 10:21:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 4:08:29 AM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 1:46:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://chestofbooks.com...

The above source only applies to non-personal contracts. A will is about as personal as you can get, thus the above stipulations do not apply.

The importance of this distinction IMHO is that it restricts this death provision to business usage, meaning that the contracts that obligate a business would indeed survive the death of one of its principles.

This is a misunderstanding of the non-personal clause: non personal is everything that can be satisfactory and equally performed in his stead by the assignee or the successors of the promisor

A will is simply a transfer of property - which is strictly non personal. If one want to prove that a will is personal, one has to prove that it is not a kind of transfer of property.

Anything that involves assets has been found to be non-personal, and thus, cannot be voided upon the death of either party.

To quote the source:

1) Sorry, this source is terrible, but I will work with it for not for lack of an alternative.
2) What the source is outlining are all business functions. I will add that your source is classified as a business source, according to the link.
3) What exactly is your definition of "personal"? Mine is "non-business". The source never defines this.

It is at the pleasure of the government. The government presides over probate to determine valid heirs, and any "legally binding" provision is enforced by the monopoly on violence that is inherent in any government action.

Not at all: the government is legally and constitutionally bound to provide enforcement. If the government dislike a person, he is not at the pleasure of the government; the government cannot simply take his life or his property or his freedom of speech simply because it want to - he is legally entitled to his life, property, and freedom of speech, under the framework of the law, and he must be judged by a jury of his peer for the taking of them.

Your comment is wholly irrelevant to mine. The government does not determine heirs by some sort of personal preference. The government determines valid heirs through the stipulations found in the will, a legal document. The government is all over this process, thus it is "at the pleasure of the government".

The bolded is wholly irrelevant...the person in question is already dead.

The government determination of a valid heir may only take place when no will exist, or a will was shown to be invalid. As such, the concept of will does not involve the government's decision, only its legal enforcement of contract.

Again, the will is a legal document, i.e. "at the pleasure of the government".

The rest of your argument again applies only to businesses, and not personal matters.

Not at all. Please find the source full of personal matters example: "a contract between a ..."

Every single element mentioned in the source applies to business usage, with the sole exception of bastardy suits, although bastardy suits can be a synonym for "lawsuit," which can have clear business usage, and given the rest of your source, it most clearly fits a business context.

Rent, utilities, commercial farming, equipment maintenance, insurance, sawing lumber (??), these are all business functions.

Willing private property has nothing to do with commerce.

It has everything to do with commerce - commerce are all form of trade, including transfer of property - like you've said, trade a pig for a tree. Buying a loaf of bread got taxed - it does involve transfer of wealth.

Gifting is not commerce. Gifting does not involve economic activity of any sort. It may lead to economic activity depending upon what the recipient does with the gift, but the actual act of gifting is devoid of this quality.

The argument I am making is that once a person dies, what makes that person's property "private," i.e. his life, is lost. One cannot privatize anything if there is no entity that can claim the property in its name. Thus, what was once private property becomes subject to public discretion.

The argument I am making is that the person made his will before he died. An estate - a legal entity - is immediately formed at the time of death, which held the property of the deceased. The will - a legally binding agreement, which by definition a contract, will delegate the distribution of the testator's estate to the executor with the condition of executing his will. The executor, after paying off all debts accrued by the testator, will then be responsible to distribute the estate in accordance with the testator's will.

On the bolded, I will maintain my assertion that this is not business use, but personal use, so the validity of this contract after death is subject to question. It is not life insurance, which seeks to insure for the actual event of death, so there is no reason for the contract to extend beyond death.

The idea is that when a person die, a separate legal entity (the estate) actually hold the property of the decease, not the actual corpse.

This legal entity is an arm of the government. The property is of public domain in this instance. This is important to recognize, as it clearly proves that any arguments regarding private/individual rights do not apply because of the act of death.

I will maintain that the will, inheritance, and gifting are all matters dealing with tradition, and not matters dealing with justice. As I am questioning the justification of such acts, I find the acts themselves to be wholly unjustified, even if they have the weight of tradition behind them. There is no merit inherent to the act of gifting, thus there is no inherent justification.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 10:27:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 6:11:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/5/2013 6:03:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/5/2013 5:14:04 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This thread evolved from a long discussion about wealth redistribution:

http://www.debate.org...

My point was that the death of an individual allows for the perfect "justifiable" instance of public wealth redistribution for social causes.

I'm not advocating a 100% estate tax...merely justifying using the estate tax for these reasons. The logic also extends to the gift tax.

The question then becomes, is the willing of property to other individuals justifiable? Why or why not?

I don't understand why it is justified, what possible claim does the government have on someone's property ever? Simply because it's there? I see it as an opportunity for the government, but not a justifiable one. You never once make an argument on it being justified, you just say it is, whereas a will that legally documents the intentions of a property owner is justified disposition of that property.

There is a difference between an opportunity, and a justified action. After one's death, there is no natural default that the government should get anything at all.

The gist is that, once you're dead, you don't own anything. A corpse doesn't have rights, and cannot own property. All of the arguments for property rights only apply to a living person. When the government enforces a will, they're going above and beyond rights to give a person extra, unjustified control off their wealth past the point where they have any right to it.. At this point, taxation is morally sound.

The point of a will is to transfer property so that the corpse doesn't own anything. Also, why is it defacto the property of the government, what is the actual justification that the government should get it? How is it unjustified control of wealth? You make zero arguments that says that the government is justified to take what isn't theirs. Because you say it has it, doesn't mean it actually does.

1) The will is a legal document. Any legal matter is a government matter.

2) Upon death, the original owner of the property loses possession of property. Before the end of probate, the heirs stipulated in the will also do not own the property. In this instance it is public property. The government need no have any additional justification than what is inherent in these assumptions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 10:29:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 6:14:44 AM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 6:03:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/5/2013 5:14:04 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Well, nothing can stop people to transfer there wealth to a legal entity right before their death by way of a future contract, and delegate some other people to act on the legal entity as per the deceased instruction. Which is the way estates operates.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The entire point of this thread is questioning whether or not these laws are justifiable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 10:34:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 8:36:39 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
"Rights are nonsense, and natural rights are nonsense on stilts" I think I should mention that quote now. The first part I disagree with slightly, but the second is more defensible.

Where did natural rights come from? I never see a satisfactory answer to this. The intuitive point is "Nature". If so, then we should really all know what they are, as we all have them from the same source and have the same foundational rights. Yet even with the most obvious rights, like the right to self-determination is horribly challenged for centuries. Can I cede from my state? Can I cede from my state yet still live inside it? Can I cede from my own nation? Can I form my own government with it being inherently legitimate?

Or the natural right to property. Can I just "claim" any land? Like can I claim the land of Venus? Do I have to work on it to claim it? Do I have to both own it and work on it? If so, what is "owned" and "unowned" property? All this needs appeal without the state, otherwise it's not a natural right but an institutional one in my view.

The right to property is institutional. We get it from the fact that we [want to]own property, and respect others owning property. It is the right of security from another infringing on our property [ignoring extreme circumstances debatably].

Without natural rights being thrown about, the nature of property rights and what one can do with it becomes a lot clearer. So can anyone replace "natural rights" with some other terms?

I remember a discussion I had on this website on natural rights. The clear conclusion I remember reaching is similar to yours, but can describe the reasoning that led to the formation of natural rights. Natural rights are inalienable rights, used to counter inalienable fears related to potential loss of life, liberty, and property. These inalienable fears are ever-present in (IMHO) any society...in Western society it is most easily seen in a historical context by noting exactly how much emphasis is placed on the fear of God in the old Testament.

I mean, it ridiculous to say that since we have the natural right to life, we will live. That's just prima facie false.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 11:10:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 10:27:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/5/2013 6:11:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/5/2013 6:03:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/5/2013 5:14:04 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/4/2013 8:07:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This thread evolved from a long discussion about wealth redistribution:

http://www.debate.org...

My point was that the death of an individual allows for the perfect "justifiable" instance of public wealth redistribution for social causes.

I'm not advocating a 100% estate tax...merely justifying using the estate tax for these reasons. The logic also extends to the gift tax.

The question then becomes, is the willing of property to other individuals justifiable? Why or why not?

I don't understand why it is justified, what possible claim does the government have on someone's property ever? Simply because it's there? I see it as an opportunity for the government, but not a justifiable one. You never once make an argument on it being justified, you just say it is, whereas a will that legally documents the intentions of a property owner is justified disposition of that property.

There is a difference between an opportunity, and a justified action. After one's death, there is no natural default that the government should get anything at all.

The gist is that, once you're dead, you don't own anything. A corpse doesn't have rights, and cannot own property. All of the arguments for property rights only apply to a living person. When the government enforces a will, they're going above and beyond rights to give a person extra, unjustified control off their wealth past the point where they have any right to it.. At this point, taxation is morally sound.

The point of a will is to transfer property so that the corpse doesn't own anything. Also, why is it defacto the property of the government, what is the actual justification that the government should get it? How is it unjustified control of wealth? You make zero arguments that says that the government is justified to take what isn't theirs. Because you say it has it, doesn't mean it actually does.

1) The will is a legal document. Any legal matter is a government matter.

2) Upon death, the original owner of the property loses possession of property. Before the end of probate, the heirs stipulated in the will also do not own the property. In this instance it is public property. The government need no have any additional justification than what is inherent in these assumptions.

First, does that mean that the government hasn't a claim on it if there is a will?

Actually, I think that there does need to be a justification that the government gets the property by default over a closest living relative. It is more of your opinion than it is a justification that the government has greater claim on this property than the closest living relative. You haven't made a compelling justification for the state, other than they are an arbitor in the process of estates, just as they are an arbitor of a living person's property. Since the state helps me protect my property from being stolen is that property by default the property of the state secondary to me?
hereiam2005
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 2:15:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 10:21:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

This legal entity is an arm of the government.

This is an extremely foreign concept for me.
A legal entity is "a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

How exactly a legal entity is an arm of the government?

On the rest of the points, I believe that you have cleverly used the confusion, both in semantic and in the resolution, to your advantage :P I do hope that I did not stumbled upon a troll(ish) debate.
hereiam2005
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 2:16:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 2:15:33 PM, hereiam2005 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 10:21:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

This legal entity is an arm of the government.

This is an extremely foreign concept for me.
A legal entity is "a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

How exactly a legal entity is an arm of the government?

On the rest of the points, I believe that you have cleverly used the confusion, both in semantic and in the resolution, to your advantage :P I do hope that I did not stumbled upon a troll(ish) debate.

I am too young and too inexperienced to try to win a troll debate LOL!