The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
John Locke also struggled to understand why we allow inheritance
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:32 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part He didn't think the answer was obvious. He noticed that everyone just took it for granted and that it was never even put up for debate, anywhere, ever in history. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002489) |
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:39 PM Author: ivory theatre Questioning Inheritance is how you troll a king without getting beheaded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002510) |
 |
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:40 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Locke believed is was already common practice before the first kings appeared on the scene (he didn't think Adam was a king). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002515) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:45 PM Author: Obsidian Affirmative Action Wagecucks without it we'd have Boomerism on steroids
|
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:50 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part We can offer justifications for it post hoc, but we can't explain why it's been baked into our political traditions since before anyone started keeping records, or why it's never been challenged (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002543) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:02 PM Author: Obsidian Affirmative Action Wagecucks its been repeatedly challenged. the justifications for it are so compelling that they easily explain why it exists.
|
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:05 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part No one ITT seems to understand why it exists. They can offer post hoc justifications but they can't explain why it became universal tradition. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002580) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:19 PM Author: Obsidian Affirmative Action Wagecucks are you looking for some record of debate over whether a caveman's son should be able to take his sharpest flint after his death?
|
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:25 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part No, the record would presumably be reflected in some early king's accounts, or some mythical founding legend, a religious text or something of that sort. Instead it looks like English people were content to just act like cavemen, even after they formed governments and legislatures. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002631) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:27 PM Author: Obsidian Affirmative Action Wagecucks Yeah, that's what organically developed rules and traditions look like. But there has been constant debate over the details and what it should look like.
I recall the first several paragraphs of the Magna Carta are about inheritance, eg. how long you have to wait before kicking a widow out of her dead husband's house.
|
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:31 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Laws change all the time though. A king comes to power and decides everyone should start driving on the other side of the road, or that women should be allowed to divorce their husbands, and it provokes controversy. At some point, the controversy gets settled through enactment of law.
That didn't happen with laws on inheritance though. The laws got written, but there's no record of any debate. No kings tried to shake things up and there were no popular movements against it. It looks like lawmakers were simply codifying what was already established custom. We tweaked the margins but that's it. |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:52 PM Author: High-end dilemma there has never been any popular movements against the wealthy tp
estate law hasnt changed since the magna carta tp |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:53 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Keep moving goalposts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002765) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:30 PM Author: High-end dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002641) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:34 PM Author: High-end dilemma you're remarkably stupid.
because the natural state of things is that people pass their shit to their kids or the strongest guy takes what he wants.
a system where everything escheats back to the state and is fairly redistributed is extraordinarily complicated even today which is why communism and socialism and tons of other systems designed to solve weath inequality have failed. |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:11 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part It's no more complicated than exercising eminent domain, which we also take for granted. Fail. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002704) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:24 PM Author: High-end dilemma yeah no difference from a piece of real estate being taken to build a road and all property a person owns reverting to the state and being redistributed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002715) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:32 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Exactly. lol@ the state not being able to confiscate your property. That's about the easiest thing for any state to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002728) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:41 PM Author: High-end dilemma its the fair redistribution part thats hard you moron. lets say your family owns a farm and your dad dies. is there a lottery who gets to run it? how are those people qualified? and youre kicked off the land you lived on since a kid? is it sold to the highest bidder, which would lead to insane consolidation? what about different sized businesses? who values it? and how do we assure the best shit isnt going to the people connected to the decision makers? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002741) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:53 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part All property just reverts back to the state by virtue of law after you die. What happens next is arbitrary. Maybe it goes to the kids, maybe not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002766) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:05 PM Author: High-end dilemma since youre confident about this subject and how ill cower in fear of your voice do you want to schedule a time to discuss this on x spaces? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002777) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:42 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part I've already made at least one, maybe two or three Youtube videos on 17th century political thought. Go find one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002884) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:53 PM Author: High-end dilemma "schizo" + "chinese" + "locke" + "alpha" + "deep voice" + "inheritance" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002929) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:32 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part You forgot the link (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003082) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 6:30 PM Author: Violent persian parlour The government doesn’t get to straight confiscate your property. It has to provide fair compensation. Yours is a reddit level analogy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003246) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 6:31 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part The reason we added "just compensation" to the Fifth Amendment, and the reason it's called an "amendment," is because it was already taken for granted that the government can seize your property. It was so taken-for-granted that it was not even listed among the powers of government in the US Constitution. Yetm people still felt compelled to put limits on it. The real history of "eminent domain" goes back to the late neolithic. Locke blinds Americans to this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003251) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:02 PM Author: Titillating Topaz Native you spending into the economy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002574) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:36 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part You doing anything to ensure the state has enough resources to withstand the next major war or natural disaster? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002730) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:46 PM Author: Pearl piazza that show was sps from the second season (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002528) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:36 PM Author: Vibrant Property Blood Rage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002863) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:31 PM Author: impressive painfully honest azn sex offender (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003080) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:51 PM Author: salmon self-absorbed windowlicker The reasons for this seem pretty functional, partly because the way the king keeps his job is my making powerful people happy and partly simply not killing the golden goose. The drive to provide for your children is so strong that parents will resent a regime that prevents them from doing it, and do everything possible to circumvent it (transfer late in life, have children on the title of their properties, etc.). The wealthy are by definition powerful, so this is a great way to anger people who can start the revolution. BUT, even if you succeed, you've destroyed the incentive for your most productive citizens to produce. Once they have enough money for themselves, they'll just soft quit. It's better to have them toil to make the kingdom wealthier even if you only get some of it, rather than to try to take it all and get nothing. If I wasn't building wealth for my children to have some day, I already would have clocked out of the faggot rat race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002545) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:53 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Locke thought it was a common practice that predated the earliest governments, and was already so taken for granted that no ruler would even think to question its legitimacy. He didn't think people sat around and parsed it out, or else we'd have records of the debate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002548) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:59 PM Author: salmon self-absorbed windowlicker I don't understand the objection, then. Most people naturally want to leave things to their children, so absent a coercive/powerful state, then that's what happens. When we eventually did get stationary bandits, even they didn't want to fuck with this deep instinct. Almost all animal species instinctively provide for their children, not understanding that humans do the same obtuse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002560) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:00 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Eventually it became codified as law though. Whatever we were doing out of habit became part of our legal code, and now we only think about it in those terms, as though it requires legislation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002563) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:56 PM Author: High-end dilemma i think many would want to, it's just extraordinarily difficult to create a system that operates fairly in perletuity.
the temptation for the people administering the system to enrich their own people (see your human nature point) is hard to create checks and balances against. our own system was built explictly to prevent an aristocracy by leaving the people power and its still rife with grift and patronage. |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:13 PM Author: Lime casino According to Locke's philosophy (scarcity and take only what you need from nature), your argument in favor of inheritance would probably be an argument against it under his framework.
|
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:27 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Indeed, Locke thought it would be wasteful if someone hunted some game, harvested the meat, then died before he was able to consume it. That person would be invading his neighbor's share, albeit unwittingly. If his kids eat the leftover meat however, nothing is wasted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002632) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:53 PM Author: Lime casino why even have a rule then? take only what you need, but so long as you plan to leave it to a family member upon your death, you can take everything. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002688) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:02 PM Author: High-end dilemma CONTROL YOURSELF
TAKE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED DUPA
FAMILIY CANT ALL THAT MUTTON
THAT YOU HUNTED |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 6:16 PM Author: Lime casino Ok but where do we draw the line? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003203) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 3:13 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Leads to tragedy of the commons. That's what Locke sought to avoid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002707) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:53 PM Author: tripping cuckoldry Locke drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002550) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:54 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Like you know (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002551) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:57 PM Author: tripping cuckoldry the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002555) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:01 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Like you know (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002566) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:10 PM Author: tripping cuckoldry of course thats your contention (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002594) |
|
Date: June 11th, 2025 1:42 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part What are you even doing in this thread? This has nothing to do with Israel. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49005588) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 1:59 PM Author: pea-brained lodge The honest scholar! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002558) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:23 PM Author: peach electric doctorate striped hyena Didn’t he hire a bunch of Clarks of Scholarship to get this message out? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002627) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 2:36 PM Author: Gay juggernaut stock car honestly can't tell if the OP is a troll or if NSAM is just really that dumb (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002656) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:07 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part RSF's daddy can't tell his clients to hire RSF and pay him to be their lawyer (lmao). So why does society let RSF inherit money his daddy made from those same clients?
https://i.imgur.com/X8OR992.png |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:36 PM Author: Aphrodisiac insane pistol corner Locke is fucking gay lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002864) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:38 PM Author: Gay juggernaut stock car (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002871) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:45 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part He wrote in English, so he was easy for proles to pick up and read. Ironically he only wrote in English because he couldn't write in Latin (or German, or French). He's not respected outside the Anglosphere. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002901) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:46 PM Author: Grizzly talented masturbator Better than being some shtetl nigger ape (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002903) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:47 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part 1/3 of the First Treatise consists of Locke trying unravel the genealogy of Hebrew kings. He never cites the New Testament even once, but do a word search for "Esau" and see what comes up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002907) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:41 PM Author: hyperactive exciting codepig this is pretty low IQ of Locke, the family unit is the basic form of any society, the earliest tribes that eventually grew into something more were communal but they were also all related, for tribes to cooperate they have to be assured that resources will continue to be split in a roughly fair manner and passing things down the children is a fucking perfect way to do that when your other option is letting some dood who doesn't know you decide what happens, it's what seperates us from lions who kill the young of any strong male after he dies (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002880) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 4:53 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Then there should be legends of great kings or gods commanding that property be inherited. Somehow we have religious texts laying down every single law except this one. Furthermore this law is universal throughout place and time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49002927) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:42 PM Author: hyperactive exciting codepig it precedes the development of either religions or kings, did you even read my poast? it is so foundational that it need not be codified, trying to steal a man's property from his children justifies taking you out back and slitting your throat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003126) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:47 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part That's circular reasoning. Lots of things that were common in paleolithic times are illegal now, including many local customs relating to sexual reproduction. We've debated pretty much everything except this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003144) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:49 PM Author: hyperactive exciting codepig it isn't circular, I didn't say it was some logical necessity that could only ever be one way, but given incentives that exist in the real world this is a very obvious way for things to shake out, as evidenced by the fact that they did indeed work out exactly that way (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003146) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:50 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part If we held a referendum today on how Musk's money should be distributed after he dies, which side would win the popular vote?
1. Give Musk's money to his children
2. Divide up Musk's fortune and cut a check to every individual American |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:53 PM Author: hyperactive exciting codepig we hold that referendum all the time except we have spent a few thousand years developing the rule of law so the question would be whether a generally applicable law should be put in place that would effect Musk in this manner and the answer is no, people do not support that because they have kids and want them to get their stuff, as they have always wanted (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003155) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 5:54 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Give one example of such a referendum being held. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003161) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 6:12 PM Author: hyperactive exciting codepig when congress upped the inheritance tax limit to like 5 million (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003197) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 6:14 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part That's not even remotely close to my proposed referendum. Surely there's been at least one society where people voted to seize all the assets from some oligarch after he dies and redistribute them to the people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003200) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 6:19 PM Author: hyperactive exciting codepig yes the Russians tried that once (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003211) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 6:22 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Link? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003221) |
|
Date: June 11th, 2025 1:38 PM Author: impressive painfully honest azn sex offender that's called communism you foreign fuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49005574) |
|
Date: June 11th, 2025 1:40 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Wrong again, faggotass.
"After 1923, inheritance of property apparently became firmly entrenched, and the restrictions on its scope have been progressively reduced with each amendment. Thus protection by law of "the right; of inheritance in personal ownership" was incorporated in the U.S.S.R. 1936 Constitution now in force."
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9311&context=mlr |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 7:05 PM Author: Underhanded boltzmann Make money perishable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003315) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 7:07 PM Author: hyperactive exciting codepig the debt cancellation that new rulers used to do was a much better idea than fucking with inheritance, you fuck the rich while they're alive but right at the moment they really can't bitch without getting got (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003319) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 7:21 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Put it to a nationwide vote right now:
1. Should we keep letting rich people donate their money to their kids after they die, or;
2. Should the government confiscate rich people's wealth after they die, and write annual checks to every American for an equal portion of whatever the IRS confiscated from dead rich people that year? |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 7:40 PM Author: cobalt motley fortuitous meteor station Would easily lose (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003413) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 7:41 PM Author: Gay juggernaut stock car people would just spend all their money before they died or hide it offshore you fucking retard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003415) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 7:41 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Why? They're going be dead before any of this matters. Are you afraid of offending Bill Gates' ghost? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003416) |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 8:03 PM Author: Gay juggernaut stock car i'm actually in favor of limiting inheritances in principle, but the fact of the matter is that it's extremely difficult to do in practice
your comments on the topic in this thread are just stupid and you're just looking to get a rise out of people like gunnerattt who can't help themselves |
|
Date: June 10th, 2025 8:09 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part Locke simply made the point that it's never been put to a vote, and therefore we cannot say it's done out of common consent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49003471) |
|
Date: June 11th, 2025 11:41 AM Author: Turquoise Toilet Seat It’s perspective bias on Locke’s part. It has been “voted” on by people and governments often throughout history via personal or social choice. It fails to persist because the strategy loses against people and/or societies that engage in it.
Societies that don’t allow inter generational resource transfers were outcompeted by those that do. Within societies that allow transfers, family units that don’t engage in inter generational wealth transfers were placed at a competitive disadvantage vs those that do and were outcompeted.
People and families are more than free to not engage in inheritance, and the experiment has been run innumerable times throughout history; it’s just a losing strategy. |
|
Date: June 11th, 2025 12:58 PM Author: Clear well-lubricated crackhouse party of the first part You forgot the link (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5735676&forum_id=2E#49005455) |