Trio and Friends

What should be done with inheritance? Francisco D’Anconia talks about this briefly: “Only the man who does not need it, [this comma is really annoying] is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started” (p. 382). Would a fair government then confiscate all inheritance, leaving everyone with only the money they have earned?

The key example of inherited wealth is land. How does one 'earn' land? One can earn the money to pay for land, but who gets to claim ownership of it in the first place, and on what basis?

This is a bigger problem when it comes to copyright law. Hank Rearden put ten years of effort into developing Rearden Metal, and others benefit from it by paying him to produce it, as is fair. Ayn Rand talks about how different it would be for other men to “go through the jerky motions of an ape performing a routine it had learned to copy by muscular habit, performing it in order to manufacture Rearden Metal, with no knowledge and no capacity to know what had taken place in the experimental laboratory of Rearden Steel through ten years of passionate devotion to an excruciating effort” (p. 517). But what about when Hank Rearden dies? Should his invention immediately go into the public domain? This isn’t discussed.

And the penny drops… The only thing that could possibly bend and break truth, a typo, has been found. But is it really a typo. Was it intended or not. Will we ever know the truth?!

I was about to disagree with the quote above. I was about to say it is inconsistent with the rest of Rand’s thought process as far as the story is concerned. But then I read it again. It does not say one cannot or should not leave their possessions to whomever they wish (which I believe is the right way). It says who is FIT to receive wealth. That is a different matter. Of course not all those who receive wealth handle it well. Lottery winners typically ruin their lives and all their relationships with it. Who is fit? Who knows… well we can look at who knows how to manage it well. This translates to using the money to profit other people (which is how one makes more money if it is not through theft or manipulation). So, yes I suppose it is exactly those people who are proving to do the most good for other people, and not just lip service but the other people have proven so with their hard earned cash they are willing to trade.

Would a fair government then confiscate all inheritance, leaving everyone with only the money they have earned?

The fair government would let you leave your money to whoever you liked and wouldn’t rob you on your death bed.

If people should be free to leave their money to whoever they like, then we see from history and society that they are most likely to leave it to their children. Their children then get an advantage over children whose parents did not leave as much or any money to them, for whatever reason.

This leads us to a society in which some people start off with lots of money, and others start off without, because of who their parents are, not because of who they are. Those with money can afford an education that can lead to a good job. Those without must get jobs without a good education - low-skilled jobs, which are usually paid less. There are many other repercussions but this is perhaps the clearest and easiest to focus on. The low-skilled jobs are valued less by bosses, which means the employees are less likely to be treated well.

Thus the pattern of some people being rich and others being poor seems self-perpetuating. It is not based on who is virtuous and hard-working, but on who had parents with enough money to send them (for example) to law school or medical school.

Now, before you answer the below question, please don't bring up the government and whether or not it can "force" people to do this or that. I'm not interested, to begin with, in the role of the government in this situation. I'm interested in what we think about this situation prior to any question of government. Do we consider this an ideal situation? Is this a situation we call fair? Is there nothing we would want to change about this situation?

If people should be free to leave their money to whoever they like, then we see from history and society that they are most likely to leave it to their children. Their children then get an advantage over children whose parents did not leave as much or any money to them, for whatever reason.

Yes. I think this is true.

This leads us to a society in which some people start off with lots of money, and others start off without, because of who their parents are, not because of who they are. Those with money can afford an education that can lead to a good job. Those without must get jobs without a good education - low-skilled jobs, which are usually paid less. There are many other repercussions but this is perhaps the clearest and easiest to focus on.

Yes. I think this is true sort of. It implies that there is some society where it is not the case that some people have more than others. As though it is your freedom to give your wealth as you see fit that is the cause of some people having more than others.

The low-skilled jobs are valued less by bosses, which means the employees are less likely to be treated well.

They are valued less by everyone because people who can do them are plentiful. It is not the bosses who value the job less it is the supply of workers coupled with the demand for the job to be done. It also does not follow that low pay means you are treated poorly. There are many terrible jobs that must pay lots of money because the workers are few and the job has to be done. For example underwater welding.

Thus the pattern of some people being rich and others being poor seems self-perpetuating. It is not based on who is virtuous and hard-working, but on who had parents with enough money to send them (for example) to law school or medical school.

If this were true one would expect that the top 1% of earners would remain in the top 1%. This is not the case, there is a very high turn over rate. It also assumes that your parents being wealthy will make you wealthy. As though an amassed fortune will keep itself. This is also not the case. Even very large fortunes tend to evaporate within a couple of generations because the children and grandchildren fritter it away.

Now, before you answer the below question, please don't bring up the government and whether or not it can "force" people to do this or that. I'm not interested, to begin with, in the role of the government in this situation. I'm interested in what we think about this situation prior to any question of government. Do we consider this an ideal situation? Is this a situation we call fair? Is there nothing we would want to change about this situation?

Ok, no government.

I don't know how to answer whether it is an ideal situation. It is not fair in the sense that everyone is the same but it is not unjust either. In the olympics, for example, not everyone is equal. Some people run faster. We do not insist that they are slowed down because they are too fast and not giving the slower runners a chance at winning. What is fair is the rules are applied exactly the same to all the competitors. If one's genetics make him faster or stronger or give some other edge, well that is exactly what we want to see and celebrate. Of course it is not all genetics, there's some luck, massive amounts of training etc.

Is there anything I would want to change? Well, not about wealthy people giving money to where they want. It would be nice if more people were wealthy. But I think we are doing a pretty good job of that. In the last 100 years the standards of living for everyone have been improving unbelievably quickly. Watching us go from land lines to cell phones and watching the internet be born in my lifetime has been quite cool. Watching computer technology improve has also been quite cool. I have on my desk right now a new work laptop that five years ago would have been impossible to fit in anything but a workstation desktop. It was not cheap but it boggles the mind that is it even possible. Oh, TV technology too! When I moved into this house ten years ago we had a "giant" tube TV. I think it was a whopping 32 inches. I laugh at that thing now, how heavy and big it was, the picture quality. Anyway, things ARE getting better. Better for everyone. I certainly wouldn't want to change that.