Originally posted by Primordial
Does someone, whether it be an individual, government or society, deserve to take the fruits of someones life while their children do not?
Ok, very non condescendingly, does someone deserve to take the fruits of your life away in terms of your education? Titles? Physical fitness?
Intellectual ability? or should these things transfer to your children?
Some of them, by nature, are impossible to transfer. Ie; the fruits of your exercise program, or your mental contents. It is simply impossible to
transfer these "fruits of your life" to you children. They die with you. Its natural. We all know it. In some countries, your title DID transfer
to your children. If you managed to subdue a kingdom, you could pass it on to your heirs. (In others, it didnt) Laws had to be put in place to allow
that sort of transfer, and here, in America, we decided against it, using the same Scottish Enlightenment reasoning that led to Darwin, and Smiths
From one of the influential thinkers and writers of the time of the founding of this nation, Thomas Paine;
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second,
claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set
up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries,
yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that
nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to
give away the right of posterity, and though they might say "We choose you for our head," they could not without manifest injustice to their
children say "that your children and your children's children shall reign over ours forever." Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact
might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men in their private sentiments have ever treated
hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils which when once established is not easily removed: many submit from fear, others from
superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.
The argument I make is simple. Not so simple is the understanding of free markets, and natural selection. If you know both, it is not hard at all.
All of this thinking, about excellence rising through competition, and the evil of regulation, etc., are the result of the budding understanding of
how natural selection works. It was not called that yet. Its the same idea. Clearly. The language they use, (if anyone cares to read them,) the
mechanics they use, are just that. And none other.
All I am saying is, that, more is required to keep a market free then that which Adam Smith proposed. He didnt get it all right. And, he didnt build
his system with the assumption of democracy either. (Nor did Plato.) To have the system actually work as intended you have to first recognize it for
what it is, and secondly, make it mimic the thing it is intended to. Which means, it is necessary for there to be a periodic reset. (Generational
reset in terms of property)
Our founders realized this, and had periodic elections. What they did not account for was that without the other type of reset, the political reset
would not function as intended. This was a new concept at the time. Not fully elaborated, in its infancy. They missed something. It happens.
But clearly, they were well aware that in many areas, this reset had to happen, and they were aware of selective forces. If you allow the hereditary
transfer of property in a society, you end up with the same non-efficient system economically that you get politically with hereditary monarchy or
aristocracy. Its just not complicated. It simply is what it is. It circumvents the natural reset of physical death in biological systems, that keeps
the competition moving freely one generation to the next. Each generation competing on their own, and each generation producing its own crop of
winners and losers, rather than recycling endlessly the first ones.
Originally posted by Primordial
We already have the system, we just don't follow it. Corruption has ruined it. It's what we all bitch about daily on ATS.
We actually dont have that system. We have a partial version of that system that is being eroded further year by year. We got lucky when America was
first founded, that people JUST HAPPENED TO BE on an equal footing, because of the newness of the continent to exploitation, the people who were here
being roughly equal due to the roughness, etc. Our system worked so well for 100 or so years because we lucked into the circumstances we wanted to
create, but didnt really know how to. Our description was not quite it, but because our circumstances were it, naturally, we did not notice the
errors with our system as the initial imbalance took years to develop from a small shimmy to a violent wobble.
We do have corruption, but the system as initially laid out was just so slightly out of whack and that has led to the corruption, fostered it,
And yes, everyone knows there is corruption. And I hear all sorts of really stupid solutions, "lets revolt" or partisan solutions. And replace
what with what? Noticing that my hand is hanging off is one thing. Figuring out what caused it, and how to prevent it happening again, and then
reattaching it is another entirely.
We need to do more than see THAT we have a problem, we need to identify the root of it, and come up with a fix for it too. Just whining isnt helping
us. Nor is knee jerk partisan finger pointing. This is a mechanical problem. It can be logically worked through, and solved. Neither party has the
answer, because neither party can figure out why this really isnt working as intended. They are just assuming it is all the other guys fault when the
truth is they are both at fault. They are holding an incomplete view of what the system needs to function as intended because the early developers
did not have the elaborated theory of natural selection that we do. We actually could fix this. And make it work like the ideal is supposed to. It
neednt be a pipe dream.