Features

The One and Only... · #1

I propose that property rights do not extend, in any regard, unto death.

Consider this example. A landlord dies. Under current conceptions of property, his tenement would go to whomever his will is directed; let's say his son. I propose that this tenement, upon the landlord's death, is immediately unclaimed material, and that its constituents have a legitimate right to claim it as their own via appropriation.

By the same token, however, when the small farmer dies, his land is yielded over to his family, as it is they who are appropriating the land for use. In this sense, then, what I propose is very different from a death tax.

I feel that extending property claims beyond death is nonsensical, inequitable, and economically inefficient. I believe it is responsible for innumerable greivances in this world.

Discuss.

ScruU2wice · #2

You believing and feeling are well with in the realm of objectivity.

especially when you provide no logic or evidence

No one having two houses fixes the economy?

Please for the love of God take a rhetoric class..

Kulturkampf · #3

What if you want to give a present to someone when you die?

I think it does extend because I might want to give a present to someone when I die. A present in my will.

Maybe I would give some money to friends and family, or a photograph of me when I was young. Or even a baby picture.

Spectre X · #4

OAO you tool, shut your mouth.

And Kultie, you shut yours, too. You're retarded and you don't even know.

The One and Only... · #5

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScruU2wice

No one having two houses fixes the economy?

I think you've missed the point, which is that the current system promotes illegitimate aggregation of wealth.

AChimp · #6

Claiming a fat inheritance is my God-given right.

Discuss.

Zhukov · #7

I don't see much of a point in getting of rights after death while still maintaining private property.

PS Kulchakampf; when people use the term 'private property', they are refering to land and factories. ie something that can produce - not baby photos.

Kulturkampf · #8

I know what you mean, Zhukov, but what if say there is a family barber shop called "Kultur Klub" -- wouldn't it be appropriate that my kids, who grew up around it and maybe even helping herea nd there have the opportunity at inheritance?

It is not evil.

There should certainly be exceptions for family industires.

ScruU2wice · #9

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I think you've missed the point, which is that the current system promotes illegitimate aggregation of wealth.

I don't think so

my point is just as valid as yours

Johnny Couth · #10

That's a very cold way of looking at it. My family worked hard on this house for five years. It was a piece of shit shack when moved in. To think someone wouldn't inherit it just because you think some people have to much stuff is stupid. If I payed for something, I get to choose who gets it when I die.

sspadowsky · #11

Know what the Philo board needs these days? More silly, hypothetical, idealistic, pseudo-intellectual bullshit scenarios that are never, ever, ever going to happen in a billion, gajillion years.

Discuss.

Kulturkampf · #12

Are you saying that my Kultur Klub barber shop is not going to happen?

ziggytrix · #13

While we're at it, let's make it a rule that if I shoot you in the face, I get to have all your stuff.

sadie · #14

from now on, i'm picturing kultureboy as boy george.

davinxtk · #15

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

While we're at it, let's make it a rule that if I shoot you in the face, I get to have all your stuff.

TRADE WARS

The One and Only... · #16

I need to clarify a point.

That dinky shack that your family built? Yeah, that's going to remain the families. You live there; hence, you have been appropriating it; hence, it will transfer to the family when you die.

The apartment complex Mr. Millionare built, however, might not.

Quote:

No one having two houses fixes the economy?

I never said you couldn't have two houses.