trc (03/11/83)
"is it *fair* that someone should get that much wealth and the resulting political power by picking the right father?" It depends what the definition of "any realistic sense of *earn*" is. Taken literally, since they *did* in fact earn it, there is no problem. I suspect that what is really meant is "in any way that most people earn money". And of course, most people dont make their money in the same way as the Rockefellers. No one is born rich - their parents are rich, and choose to give their wealth to their children. Someone along the line had to earn that money. In what sense is any of this unfair? One would have to assume that the parents did not have a right to choose what became of their fortune, in order to consider it unfair. However, it would be grossly unfair if their wealth gave them undue political power. However, the possibility of this happening is determined by the type of government, not by their being wealthy. In a proper republic, wealth should not result in undue power. Unfortunately, I dont know of any government today in which this is the case. Whether they choose wisely in leaving their entire fortune, intact with their children, is another matter. Personally, I would rather spend most of it while alive, and instead leave behind children that know how to make money (IE be productive.) But again, that is a personal choice. houti!trc Tom Craver
ka (03/12/83)
[Sorry to flood the net with my drivel; this is may last one I promise] There are many "fair" ways to distribute money (and thus goods) amoung a society, depending on your point of view: - Divide the money equally among all the members of society. - Distribute money based upon the needs of the members. - Distribute the money based upon the contributions of the members. - Provide individuals unable to work with enough to meet their needs and distribute money to others based upon their contributions. Pure (and therefore to a lesser degree, impure capitalism) is fair by the third defintions of fair, but only by using a rather nonstandard definition of contribution: an individual's contribution measured by how much money he/she is given. Thus if a quack convinces patients to come to him rather than obtaining real medical treatment, it is erroneous to consider his value to society to be negative; he obviously deservers the money he makes because his patients are willing to pay it. Similarly, if a talented writer makes who's works will be read for centuries to come makes less money than the pulp novellist who's name will be forgotten in ten years time, obviously the pulp novellist is making the more valuable cultural contribution. And finally, if a person's parents believe decide to leave all their money to him, then obviously he has earned it by being a good son, making them like him, and generally being useful in helping his parents enhance their social standing. Of course, the person who's parents are poor won't be as well rewarded for being a good son, but that's fair because his parents, being less wealthy, are obviously less important to please. (Don't be fooled by people who quote the bit about "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence; that refers only to political equality. We all know that each person's worth as a human being is determined by how much money he is earns or is able to convince other people to give him.) This is turning into a flame--I guess it's too late at night. My own belief is that something like the fourth element on the list is fairest, but I don't know quite how to measure the contribution of an individual. And no, I don't believe that people do have an unlimited right to do what they want to with their own money (particularly after they're dead) when it conflicts with other moral principles, such as the notion that an individual's wealth should be related to his contribution to society. Kenneth Almquist