[MD] Fw: No more SOM and no more money!

[Platt Holden]

Hi Laird,

Welcome to the group. What you've written to David about inheritance 
makes a lot of sense to me, especially the part about choice. If 
there's one thing the MOQ stresses about morality it's the high value 
of free choice. What I find interesting about the group is that some of 
those  who advocate going around nude in public as an example of the 
morality of free choice will turn right around and become advocates for 
universal health care where one's free choice in selecting a doctor is 
barred. Of course any society must have restrictions against someone's 
free choice to physically damage another person's body or property. But 
other than that, the default position should always be individual 
liberty.

As for inflation, it's a double-edge sword as you suggest. Someday 
someone is going to have to pay the piper. But as big-spending 
politicians like to say as they soar off in another flight of specious 
reasoning, "Someday we'll all be dead."

Regards,
Platt
          
> Hi David,
> 
> I've been trying to find some perspective other than my default (which
> thinks inheritance is perfectly fine and great) to look at this, and it
> struck me that the current situation is already damn near perfect. A
> nice, notorized Will and Testament gives each person the CHOICE of how
> their earnings and possessions are divvied up in their stead. If they
> earned 'em, hell, it's their call. If someone wants to give their wealth
> to the poor (say, through an organization, church, whatever), they can
> do so. They can give it to their kids if they so choose. More likely,
> though, is that most philanthropy will be done during their lifetime
> through donations if that's really what they want to do with their
> earnings.
> 
> We have the capability in the current system to help our fellow man by
> choice. The fact is that many people choose to help strangers, but most
> people choose to help their families first out of a sense of "need". I
> don't think this comes as a surprise to much of anyone. By merit of the
> dynamics of our economic system, we maintain a partially-contrived
> struggle (measure of wealth) where the balance point of peoples' sense
> of need and possession (selfishness vs self-comfort) is tested. Interest
> rates and inflation, both artifices of our economy, are adjusted to
> maintain the highest steady pace possible. Due to these dynamics of our
> world economy, I doubt we'll ever reach an utopian future where everyone
> feels they have more than they need and always help their neighbors.
> Unless we somehow obviate the need for inflation and thus destroy the
> perceived decline of vested value over time, but I can't figure a
> feasible way for that to happen.
> 
> -Laird