“Birthright” is this concept that can easily be accepted without question as cosmically inherent. But when you examine it, it doesn’t really make any sense at all. It’s a great way to perpetuate inequality, especially wholly unearned inequality.
I’m not sure why the idea of perpetuating inequality “doesn’t make sense”. For most of human history that’s literally what civilization has been about: building on the efforts of your ancestors to be better than your neighbors, other tribes, and eventually other empire who would rather see you fail.
Note I am not arguing that inequality is an unvarnished good or that history isn’t filled with violence and sin. However, that’s a far cry from saying simply that “birthright” doesn’t make sense at least when talking about purely physical items to be inherited.
> However, that’s a far cry from saying simply that “birthright” doesn’t make sense at least when talking about purely physical items to be inherited.
Land in particular is a special case because more cannot be created (without absolutely massive capital projects and those require some special thinking, but they are outliers).
I will agree that land is a special case, but that’s why we tax it continually.
I think society needs property tax to perform well, or else people will horde control of land under the mistaken belief that they can sell or rent it for high prices. You need tax to bring people back to reality and force them to use it productively in the present.
In the context of one society where some forms of wealth is claimed as "birthright" and thus perpetuating inequality is what does not make sense to me... meaning it is not fair.
There are multiple forms of birthright, too. The one we're used to is the right of aggregation -- I had one, inherited another, and now I have two.
Another form is the right of selection -- I have one, here's another one that just become unowned, and I get dibs on choosing that over my own. If I retain my own, the other lapses to the public. If I choose the other, mine does.
One could argue that it's "cosmically inherent" that something you earn through your own labor (of the body that you control/own?) should be yours do with as you please, so long as it doesn't hurt others. If you can't accept that fundamental property, we are quite frankly serfs, which is a few steps away from slaves. Slaves not only didn't own their own body, but they also didn't own the fruits of their labor.
> One could argue that it's "cosmically inherent" that something you earn through your own labor (of the body that you control/own?) should be yours do with as you please, so long as it doesn't hurt others.
Why is it only “cosmically inherent” as long as you don’t hurt others? Has the tiger no cosmically inherent right to his meal? The truth is he doesn’t, he must defend his kill if necessary.
The truth is you must defend what you’ve earned as well, either by force or through mutual agreement (society).
We, as a society, have agreed to grant each other exclusive rights to what we’ve earned. Of course that hasn’t always been the case throughout history. Don’t bring the cosmos into it, it happens through mutual consent, because we choose to.
Your rights are man-made, don’t take them for granted. They only exist so long as everyone agrees they do.
You can balance the real dual-interests at play here through progressive taxation, allowing for transfers of wealth that only marginally accelerate society-wide wealth disparity. The slaves/serfs lingo is a little stretched when it applies necessarily to other people, and those other people have had their entire lives to benefit from the wealth of the other person anyways.
