As you know, Andrew Carnegie was the wealthiest man of the nineteenth century. An immigrant with his parents, he got his first job at the age of thirteen and learned to invest his money in railroad and steel industries.
In 1889, Carnegie wrote an essay called "The Gospel of Wealth" inwhich he encourages the wealthy to contribute to philanthropic causes. "The man who dies rich, dies disgraced."
Do you agree that it is morally irresponsible to leave a massive fortune to posterity? We all know the arguments against: that it allows the youngsters to indulge in a life of hedonism and idleness; that inherited fortunes are squandered; that one will not value what one has not worked for; blah blah blah.
On the other hand, somebody who has earned a fortune has a right to bequeath it to their posterity if they choose. Some have a desire to keep their businesses and properties "in the family" for the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to enjoy. They trust their heirs to run their estates in a way they would approve of.
Alexis de Tocquville advocated that large estates be broken up instead of being passed on to the eldest son. Generational wealth, he argued, causes a landed aristocracy to emerge, which consolidates control and threatens the liberty of the people.
I can certainly see how a silver-spoon class could be a bane to the rest of us. For example, an businessman is less likely to give his employees a raise if he has never been one of them.
So what's a self-made billionaire to do? Keep his dinero "in the family" or give it all away before he dies?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
hm, maybe its because its real early in the morning for me, but i just really don't care what a super wealthy person does (or not do) with their money when they die. A person who becomes super wealthy has left behind a life of almost perfect decision making, and adding value to society, Are we then to believe that the final decision they make will somehow be immoral or misguided for some reason?
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
I think the question would be better understood if it were phrased "what would you do with your wealth if you were a self made billionaire".
I would probably leave enough for my children to have a comfortable start (no more than $1 million) for school an apartment and a car or to invest with.
fezwhatley: hm, maybe its because its real early in the morning for me, but i just really don't care what a super wealthy person does (or not do) with their money when they die. A person who becomes super wealthy has left behind a life of almost perfect decision making, and adding value to society, Are we then to believe that the final decision they make will somehow be immoral or misguided for some reason?
This.
fezwhatley:A person who becomes super wealthy has left behind a life of almost perfect decision making, and adding value to society
Not necessarily, N.N. Taleb's Fooled By Randomness is a good display of how wealth is not merely a result of "perfect decision making", but also random chance.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
ama gi: Alexis de Tocquville advocated that large estates be broken up instead of being passed on to the eldest son. Generational wealth, he argued, causes a landed aristocracy to emerge, which consolidates control and threatens the liberty of the people.
Wealth doesn't last forever. If the inheritors squander the money, the family will be poor again. In the long run, the only way they can remain wealthy is to use their wealth productively.
ama gi:I can certainly see how a silver-spoon class could be a bane to the rest of us. For example, an businessman is less likely to give his employees a raise if he has never been one of them.
Perhaps, but he'll eventually be forced to keep his wages in line with businesses that aren't run by spoiled brats, or he'll lose his business.
Personally, I would be comfortable leaving my family a large sum of money. Preference, of course, goes to those who are likely to make productive use of it. Probably some to charity as well, but the majority to the family.
I think Doug Casey makes a good point in his article Charity? Humbug!. You should leave your money to whoever you think can do the most with that money. Some kind of scholarship program would not be a bad idea, since it could help people help themselves. Perhaps you should "adopt" someone and let them inherit your money. Or, if you raised your children rigorously and correctly, let them inherit the money.
Political Atheists Blog
Ayn Rand is one of the biggest threats to liberty that has ever existed; advocating a system of voluntary slavery and worship of wealth for the sake of wealth. Leading to comments like "a rich person has led a life of alsmost perfect decision making" or "how could he be stupid? He's rich!"
Im glad to see that many of you quickly debunked that ludicrous proposition and recognize that inherited wealth is not the same as wealth earned.
My thoughts would be that, know matter how you raised your children, it will always be better to leave them with just a stable starting point, and disperse the rest to various poor families, schools, food dispenseries, etc. Never forsake your family for people you don't know, but neither should you allow your children "a life of hedonism and overindulgence."
Giving away was always a big part of the rich (and not so rich) people's wills. Only socialists think that people don't share until forced to.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
TBH, idiots like you are the biggest threat to liberty, mostly due to your pathological lying, ignorance and naivety. But you already know that. If you knew what you're talking about you'd know Rand would never advocate merely leaving money to someone by dint of familial relation...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Controls on inheritance limit what a property owner can do with his property, and thus are a disincentive to productivity and capital accumulation, and therefore result in lower economic productivity for everyone.
That is the economic perspective.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
ama gi:Alexis de Tocquville advocated that large estates be broken up instead of being passed on to the eldest son. Generational wealth, he argued, causes a landed aristocracy to emerge, which consolidates control and threatens the liberty of the people.
That's only dangerous is there's government around, so rich people can influence the political decisions in their favor.
You also have to remember that aristocratic estates are connected to land ownership and dates back to medieval times when lords were governments on their own lands so far more likely to pass it on as one big parcel to the eldest son than split it into smaller (i.e. less powerful) governments than for a wealthy merchant to divide his capital between his children.
Stranger:Controls on inheritance limit what a property owner can do with his property, and thus are a disincentive to productivity and capital accumulation, and therefore result in lower economic productivity for everyone.
Inheritance also provides incentive for stronger familial bonds. This might sound very cynical, but "Honor thy parents" is going to be more respected in the society where children expect to get most of their inheritance as opposed to only half (or less).
Hermes on the day of your death:voluntary slavery
Voluntary Slavery? Is that kinda like, voluntary rape? From all the books I have read by Rand, I never once heard her advocate such a thing. Now, if you are are trying to say minarchism is a minor form of slavery, then, you are correct. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction in terms.
Hermes on the day of your death:"a rich person has led a life of alsmost perfect decision making" or "how could he be stupid? He's rich!"
Again, if you have ever read any Rand, you would know her beliefs on this subject. If they inherited a lot of money and they are not intelligent, then they will quickly lose it.
Hermes on the day of your death:know matter how you raised your children, it will always be better to leave them with just a stable starting point,
Hermes on the day of your death:Never forsake your family for people you don't know
Or, instead of worshiping family for families own sake, perhaps you should know what you admire, and reward those who fulfil those admirations. Your 'family first' mentality is absurd.
Stranger: Controls on inheritance limit what a property owner can do with his property, and thus are a disincentive to productivity and capital accumulation, and therefore result in lower economic productivity for everyone. That is the economic perspective.
I have a lot more respect for rich people who use their money to affect others in a positive way. If I was rich, I think I would respect myself a lot more if I could use my power (money) to affect other people in a positive way. I guess not everyone feels this way, but I think probably most people do.
Josh:I have a lot more respect for rich people who use their money to affect others in a positive way.
Such as investing their capital in companies that offer products and services that satisfy people's needs?
Byzantine: Josh:I have a lot more respect for rich people who use their money to affect others in a positive way. If I was rich, I think I would respect myself a lot more if I could use my power (money) to affect other people in a positive way. I guess not everyone feels this way, but I think probably most people do. Get the f--- off the internet.
Josh:I have a lot more respect for rich people who use their money to affect others in a positive way. If I was rich, I think I would respect myself a lot more if I could use my power (money) to affect other people in a positive way. I guess not everyone feels this way, but I think probably most people do.
Get the f--- off the internet.
What is so wrong with what he said? I wouldn't condemn a rich man for giving everything to heirs, or his dog, or building a golden pyramid for himself. I would respect him a lot more if he put some of it towards charity though.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: ... I would respect him a lot more if he put some of it towards charity though.
... I would respect him a lot more if he put some of it towards charity though.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Because E.R. Olovetto is not an Objectivist? Being in favour of free markets and being opposed to altruism aren't the same thing. There are people (Mises being one of them), for example, who support free markets because they think they will maximise utility.