Poor poor USA

One owns the royalties on a published material. The ownership of the material simply passes on to the child like other property.

@F_alk:

Well, but they have done no work at all for that. Why should someone earn something for nothing? That is very bad for econmy, it contradicts the very basics of that (which is “you only get something when you give something”).
Why should these people get something for nothing, but on the other hand many here feel very well when bashing any social security system.

again - the rights of the property/equity holder i think should surpass your desire to see everyone “earn” their inheritance.
Gov’t is everyone’s business. Lennon’s progeny is Lennon’s business.
I don’t give a s**t if he does nothing but pick his nose and gets 1 billion$ from daddy in equity. Not my problem. The crypt looks after the crypt, and people who needs the crypt’s help. Your societal benefit at the risk of your parent’s autonomy is nothing that i need to pay attention to.

@F_alk:

Well, but they have done no work at all for that. Why should someone earn something for nothing? That is very bad for econmy.

CC’s right, this is not your obligation to teach that person about “work ethic” by taking his father’s money. That’s absurd.

This really has little to do with economy, F_alk, and more to do with personal property. Okay, so if I want to give my teenage kid a car instead of making him take the bus to school, I shouldn’t be allowed to? What if someone thinks that my kid needs to learn the value of taking public-transportation? Should they be able to take that car from me simply because they don’t agree with what I’m giving to someone else?

it contradicts the very basics of that (which is “you only get something when you give something”)./

That money wasn’t pulled out of thin air. Somebody had to work for it, whether it be the father, great-grandfather, etc. it was earned at some point and time, which made it that person’s property, which allows them to give it to whoever they want.

I have to agree with DS and CC, as long as we live in a capitalistic society, it’s not my buisness that some son should inherit his father’s multi-million dollar fortune. It was his father’s call in the first place, and if he doesn’t agree with his son getting it, he can say so in his will.

um, i may be mistaken, but i thought copyrights expired? or is that only patents and trademarks?

D:S and CC, i see your point, and acknowledge it, its not my job to teach them the value of money, and a work ethic, or any other bs like that. but they should be tought those, and i will criticize the way it is as long as it is like this.

giving your teenage kid a car is oversimplified. its the same idea as a massive inheritance, but a much smaller scale. whereas the car may be something for nothing,
A) they probably still need to work to pay for it (insurance, gas) and pay for other teenager expenses
B) even if they dont need a job for any of that, they are only teenagers, and are generally expected to have a low work ethic, and not know the value of money (i personally have a very low work ethic right now, because ive never had to work. but im not getting a fat inheritance check, so i will have to eventually)
C) a car may be something for nothing, but its not like getting a free ticket to life, as with an inheritance check. you may have a free car, but that doesnt mean you wont ever have to work.
D) its funny, because i just realized that was a very long-winded attack on a very small point

That money wasn’t pulled out of thin air. Somebody had to work for it, whether it be the father, great-grandfather, etc. it was earned at some point and time, which made it that person’s property

yes, true, true. but we dont visit the sins of the father upon the son/daughter, why give them the fruits of his labor?
and yes, it is his to give to whoever he wants, and me saying something wont change it, i acknowledge and accept that. but i still think its shameful that they get a free ride through life.

yes, true, true. but we dont visit the sins of the father upon the son/daughter, why give them the fruits of his labor?

I thought if the father dies in debt, the sons/daughters are obligated to see too it that that debt is repaid… or is the just canon law?

well, it depends the kind of debt. bank debt for instance, goes to the cosigner of the loan, if not repayed, the next of kin are not charged (i dont believe) they simple repossess the collateral. if you owe money to say, a loan shark, or gambling debt, they may go after the kids :wink:

Gaining personal wealth does not seem to be the driving force behind the econmy anymore.

Hmm, and that surprises you? :roll:

Surprising you make this observation when it’s the very policies that you’re arguing for that discourage people from accumulating wealth.

@F_alk:

@cystic:

again - the rights of the property/equity holder i think should surpass your desire to see everyone “earn” their inheritance.
Gov’t is everyone’s business. Lennon’s progeny is Lennon’s business.

@Deviant:Scripter:

This really has little to do with economy, F_alk, and more to do with personal property. Okay, so if I want to give my teenage kid a car instead of making him take the bus to school, I shouldn’t be allowed to?
…
That money wasn’t pulled out of thin air. Somebody had to work for it, whether it be the father, great-grandfather, etc. it was earned at some point and time, which made it that person’s property, which allows them to give it to whoever they want.

Ok, to subsummize:
(a) The right of personal possession is among the most important human rights, and more important than other economical principles. Why on the other hand are there human rights which are less important than my right to possession, rights that have to bow to the rules of economy?

It’s about something much more important than simple personal possession. It’s about autonomy. Whether it’s my property, my thumb, my freedoms - whatever - keep your hands off of it. For all you know i paid for my property WITH my thumb, my life’s work, whatever. I’ll acknowledge my gov’ts contribution and that of my labourers, but that is determined by specific contracts written up between us (i.e. i pay X% taxes for the privilege of conducting business here etc.). You make me look very selfish and simplistic reducing fight for personal rights to simple money hoarding. That’s really not fair.

(b) We might want to rethink the principle of capitalism, which are thought to be that personal desire to accumululate personal wealth possession. (That’s why see there is a connection between personal possession and economy. Economy is driven by investments and consumptions. Both have to come from somewhere, and at least in former times this was done by persons to gain more wealth). Gaining personal wealth does not seem to be the driving force behind the econmy anymore.

It never was the driving force behind the economy. It may have been one of the wheels of the vehical driving the economy (in addition to politics, success, creative energy, war, security etc.), but not the sole driving one.

© There is a difference between getting something for nothing depending on wether you get it by your parents/family or wether you get it from your people/society. (I wonder where tribal societies would fit in here, where the tribe/society usually consists of your -very extended- family).

The only time i really have a problem when someone “gets something for nothing” is if it comes as a result of theivery, or defrauding the gov’t. This is based on priniciple far too simplistic to waste time on.

Getting money from social security systems somehow is totally different from getting money through heritage, because the first is a matter of “everyone” (as it comes from the gov’t), and the second is a matter of choice of the deceased one…. And that changes the fact that both gain a benefit for no apparent reason and no work.

It is different. One is a social contract between Everyone and Gov’t, the other is simply a gift. Also there are apparent reasons. With social systems - this has been determined as necessary by legislature as being in the best interests of the nation (or at least its “soul”). The other is because daddy felt like it.

(d) The gain of personal possession through illegal means and the uyse of personal wealth against my or other societies still have to be discussed. Why do you lose your so very important human right in these cases?

because you’ve robbed people of their own autonomy. Either through robbery (i’ve lost my security, as well as those items i’ve worked for), or through fraud (again - some of my equity in this country has been taken from me outside of the contract i’ve joined).

No, i don’t seem to understand your mindset.

then you’re not trying hard enough.

F_alk, it’s funny you should use the phrase “getting something for nothing”, becuase it seems that a child should have a bigger right to their parent’s money than you (or the government) should.

Janus, the estate of the deceased is required to pay any debt before releasing any items named in the will.

thus, the collatteral is repossessed. The same way living delinquents pay off their debt.

falk, ive stopped trying to interpret your posts in this thread, and when last i did, we seemed to be on the same side, but stop making arguments by posing rhetorical questions.

@F_alk:

@cystic:

It’s about something much more important than simple personal possession. It’s about autonomy. …

But it only is about personal autonomy. Or better: about personal autonomy. Our societies pay no respect for other cultures autonomies, as we see them as restricting the other culture’s individuals autonomies. We don’t give a thought wether they see that autonomy (that we regard as such a high value) as autonomy at all.

This is unrelated to my point - aside from supporting it, except on a national scale. I believe that other nations should have little influence on each other outside of treaties, pacts, etc. aside from protecting smaller nations from the aggressions of larger ones. At the same time, we do have an obligation to help other nations, but this help should not be imposed upon by use of blackmail or arms.

For all you know i paid for my property WITH my thumb, my life’s work, whatever.

… your father’s work, your father’s thumb … ?

Even more to my point. If i sacrifice my life for my children, then who are you to say that it is not my children’s? The populations of North America are made up of people who left everything to come here in order to improve the lives of both themselves and their families. Why should you have any say in this, as long as i’m not having a negative influence on you (aside from making you feel sad by not gving you anything)?

…You make me look very selfish and simplistic reducing fight for personal rights to simple money hoarding. That’s really not fair.

Some use it that way, and this abuse is IMHO the thing that creates the overwhelming part of todays worlds problem. Thus, as i am part of the world, these problems are mine. Thus, it is “my business” and i have to go against it with the means that i have at hand.
I don’t think that you are among the abusers, but from my point of view you defend them and not their victims.

What abuse? The abuse of generating and keeping equity?
And the “world’s citizen” b.s. is really getting old. I lose my autonomy because some jerk who’s too lazy to do anything with his life in Newsouthbumjob Alabama is a “citizen of the world”? Fair enough - you work hard, and give away what you can to those who are poor. You gently encourage people to do the same. As for “their victims” - i am missing how not receiving money from other people makes one a “victim”. Oh dear. Bill Gates is not sharing his fortune with me. I am being victimized by him. Where i come from, people are victims of their own actions and misdeeds, of their gov’ts deeds, and of their life’s circumstances. Occassionally they are victims of the deeds of other powers - nations and men with weapons, but my working hard and giving my fortune to my children requires many assumptions and bizaarely tangental thinking to consider me abusive.
It’s funny to see someone from Germany saying this. Germany and France have both broken their contracts with the rest of the EEU by consistantly having deficits greater than 3% of their GNP. This deficit will ultimately be borne by the rest of the EEU by higher inflation rates. Do i have a right to comment on it? Maybe - but i’d direct it at the US who’s deficit is well over 500 billion now - setting Canadians up for a fall . . . .

It never was the driving force behind the economy. …

Not? What else is the main driving force then? Power can be one. But how do you accumulate power? Is there a correlation between power and wealth?

i thought i had delineated those earlier. And if you look at communist countries, power is unrelated to money, but rather directly related to who you know/sleep with/contributions to the party, etc.

The only time i really have a problem when someone “gets something for nothing” is if it comes as a result of theivery, or defrauding the gov’t.

But what is a fraud? Anything that is against the law? Anything that is against common sense? Anything that hurts more people than it benefits?

ahhh semantics . . . the last resort in a losing argument.

because you’ve robbed people of their own autonomy. Either through robbery (i’ve lost my security, as well as those items i’ve worked for), or through fraud (again - some of my equity in this country has been taken from me outside of the contract i’ve joined).

But wait…. why does setting up a sweatshop after destroying the “basis for life” before not rob the supposed workers of their autonomy?
Why is creating and then exploiting the “no security” situation of others ok on the grand scale? Why is “changing the contract” ok after “one” (you, me, a countries ethnic or social minority, pensioners, etc.) joined ?

the sweatshop is another non-sequitor - related to another argument. And i really have a problem seeing how Nike et al. destroyed the “basis for life” before these people already had.
As for “exploiting” - use whatever term you like - again we get into a debate on semantics. Using value-laden terms like this does nothing to address the argument at hand. I would use a different term myself - “benefitting” these people by providing them with means to purchase goods and services.
As far as “changing the contract” goes - unfortunately that’s a part of the contract in many respects.

id like to take this opportunity to distance myself from any connection with falk in this thread in any way. we are now on the same side in name only

Fair enough. Note taken. :wink: