Fairness and Inheritance

[Boojatta]

Any comments on the following doctrine?

"In America, the only property that should be inherited is land and the only people who should inherit it are American Indians."

[John Q. Citizen]

1. How is an American Indian determined? This is now a legal question

that the tribes themselves are struggling with.

Fortunatly or unfortunatly (depending on how one looks at it) all humans are Africans, if one just goes back far enough in our ancestory.

[acmavm]

2. Doctrine? According to whom?

[Boojatta]

23. Are you challenging the use of the word "doctrine" to describe it?

Alternatively, are you suggesting that we should not discuss a doctrine unless we can name a particular person, living or dead, who claimed to and/or seemed to accept the doctrine?

[FormerDittoHead]

3. I can tell you what Thomas Paine suggested...

http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/singlehtml.htm

"...there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest (inheritance)."

I would also suggest searching for that quote on the linked page and look just below to see the PROGRESSIVE TAX SCHEDULE that he suggested....

This isn't Karl Marx. This is one of the founding fathers...

[Selatius]

16. Blasphemy! Why do you hate America?

Why must you push this evil socialism on America?

:sarcasm:

[HereSince1628]

4. Ummm

Where do the other assets go and what makes land ownership so friggin special?

[Boojatta]

7. It's no problem finding a place for money to go.

For example, the US federal government could pay some part of its debt, thereby eliminating the cost of servicing the debt until such time as there is a new debt.

What makes land ownership so special is a good question.

[havocmom]

18. Land = food / water / shelter

simple and important formula

[HereSince1628]

19. Maybe, but why should land be left as heritable and nothing else??

When I said special I meant with respect to heritability. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

[Boojatta]

24. "Why should...?" is a challenging kind of question.

To properly answer it, one might need a whole theory of ethics. Note that I'm not claiming that it should be. I'm just putting the doctrine forward for discussion.

Have you ever heard someone say "the land belongs to the Indians" or "the land rightfully belongs to the Indians"? Note the difference between each of those statements and this statement: "the land belonged to the Indians."

If you ever hear it in future, you could say, "What about inheritance tax? Perhaps a lot of the land rightfully belongs to the government. However, the government is in debt, so perhaps the land would have been sold to reduce that debt."

You could also ask about land that would have been or actually was sold by American Indians. Perhaps some of it would have been sold to entities that do not die, such as corporations. Perhaps some of it would have been sold by each subsequent owner before the owner died.

[niallmac]

5. Except for me.

I need the inheritance from my dad to give my kids a chance at a college education.
BTW, what doctrine? I didn't kill all the Buffalo. I didn't kill all those Native Americans.
I'm just trying to survive today where fate put me.

[auburnblu]

6. I think the Kennedys woud disagree n/t

[genie_weenie]

8. Which tribe(s) gets which area(s)?

And how much ancestry allows you to claim to be a Native American?

[Solo_in_MD]

17. Thats not always applicable

full blooded Native Americans are being booted out of tribes on political grounds

[genie_weenie]

22. My question was posed to the thread's creator

Specifically his doctrine.

"the only people who should inherit it {land} are American Indians."

And I wanted to know the basis for determining Native American Ancestry.

[Boojatta]

27. Would your acceptance or non-acceptance of the doctrine change

depending on how your question is answered?

Here's one for you:

Suppose the President of the United States dies in office. The Vice President takes over. Then suppose the Vice President is elected twice and serves two full terms in addition to the initial part of one term.

After that, a new President is elected. Soon both the President and the Vice President reveal that they are actually under 35 years of age. They lied about their ages and used phony documents to trick people.

Then what would happen?

The idea of the question is: what is the basis for determining age and how carefully should people check?

[genie_weenie]

32. I think your premise is flawed.

When it comes to land ownership. All the land on the Earth has been contested over at one time or another. Even tribes in the US (prior to the European Invasion) fought each other and expanded dominion over parcels of land which yielded good hunting, farming, fishing or had other qualities the tribes sought.

It's only been due to late 20th century genetic mapping that we could even hope to find a descendant of a the "true" original owners. And for example the true owners of Europe were wipped out or assimilated 85,000 to 30,000 years ago by invaders from Africa... Poor Neanderthals...

[MADem]

9. That's a fine idea....NOT.

Outta that house there, Millie...I know you spent the last thirty years caring for your mother, who has died and left you the joint, but you can't inherit this house...and the land under it goes to the Oughtafuckyou Tribe...

Solving the issues of the government's horrible treatment of native populations isn't going to happen by fucking over present citizens, who had nothing to do with the policies enacted a hundred plus years ago.

It's an idiotic construct.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. We're leaving everything to charity.

By choice, we didn't have kids, and our relatives can fend for themselves.

[Totallybushed]

11. What's fair about that?

Sorry, but I don't see any point to the question but to stir up shit.

How about In the Middle East, no one can inherit anything but land, and only Orthodox Christians can inherit it"? It makes as much sense. That is: none.

[johnaries]

12. Cool! I'm 1/16th Cherokee. Ignore the red hair. nt.

[terminal_concept]

13. I know I'm being idealist,but.

What if nobody owned it?From my understanding at least some native Americans believed this anyway.We should all be able to put our bodies somewhere,without paying or dying.
Realistically I am sick of the "death tax" lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_(United_States)

[Boojatta]

26. My attempt to answer

What if nobody owned it? From my understanding at least some native Americans believed this anyway.
We should all be able to put our bodies somewhere,without paying or dying.

You can't use owned property unless you are the owner or you have permission from the owner. Surely native Americans were able to walk, stand, sit, lie down, and generally put their bodies somewhere before Europeans arrived, no?

Those who don't own land are able to put their bodies somewhere provided that they can afford to make rental or leasing payments. Even people who do own land have to make periodic property tax payments.

[Nicole]

14. What about the homes on that land?

If I can't leave my home to my child, do I tear it down before I die? Or does she tear it down after I die? Since only land is to be inherited I sure wouldn't want to leave my stuff junking up the place for the rightful owners. :sarcasm:

[TreasonousBastard]

15. It's cute, but it makes no sense...

there are lots of well recognized problems with the concentration of wealth through inheritance, but this is no answer.

[sweetheart]

20. how about a doctrine

where we don't pass any debts down to our children, and that every year, the
budget is balanced by an inheritance levy that cuts across all property for that
year, to claw back a debtless future for the next generation. Then the interitance
tax would be fairly borune across all walks, and give the future a chance without
digging up the past and trying to compensate history books.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. My comment on that is that it's painfully stupid.

Even if you change the wording to 'native American' (because the Inuit of Alaska were never considered 'Indians'), it's still pretty stupid. After all, how do you define a 'native American'? How long do your ancestors have to have lived on this continent? Mine have been here nearly four hundred years (the earliest arrived in 1608), and I don't have any American Indian ancestry at all, that I know of. Am I somehow LESS a native American than someone of aboriginal ancestry? Is a Briton named Courtenay or Vernon (of Norman origin) somehow less 'British' than one named Jones (Welsh/Celtic)? Is an Irishman named Dillon or Fitzgerald (Norman again) less Irish than one named O'Neill? By your logic, we might as well say that they need to kick those damned Normans and Anglo-Saxons out of Britain and allow only Celts to own land. Or throw the Franks out of France, and give the Gauls back their ancient territories. Seriously, this is just moronic.

[Boojatta]

28. Can we try to make a few distinctions?

Or throw the Franks out of France, and give the Gauls back their ancient territories. Seriously, this is just moronic.

From what doctrine did you extract the idea of throwing people out? Even if you prove in court that you had a perfectly valid contract to buy a particular piece of property and that the owner breached the contract when an opportunity arose to sell it to someone else for a higher price, the courts will not necessarily let you pay the original price and take possession. You might simply get some money.

Are the facts that "France" is the accepted name of a country and "Frank" sounds like "France" supposed to play a role in supporting your claim about Franks and France?

Suppose that after the German government annexed Austria and occupied Czechoslovakia, it had not annexed, occupied, attacked or invaded any other countries. Is there some amount of time after which it would have been foolish to think of Austria and Czechoslovakia as anything but parts of Germany?

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. I can't extract any sense out of what you're saying here.

'France' is called 'France' because of the Franks, but the Franks were a Germanic people; the original inhabitants of France were the Gauls, who were Celts (you apparently don't have much knowledge of history, eh?).

And you're making a false analogy; a better question would be: is there any length of time after which it would be foolish to think of the descendants of Germans who moved to Austria or Czechoslovakia as anything other than Austrian, or Czech? I think the answer to that one is 'yes', personally. The descendants of English or French or German or Irish immigrants who came to America three centuries ago are not themselves English, or French, or German, or Irish, but American. To argue otherwise is to state an absurdity.

[Boojatta]

30. How much effort are you making to extract sense?

You wrote:

By your logic, we might as well say that they need to (...) throw the Franks out of France (...) Seriously, this is just moronic.

What is the logic you speak of and how do you conclude, using that logic, that we might as well say that they need to throw the Franks out of France?

This thread was supposed to be about a doctrine. When you believe you see defects in some logic, are you assuming that you know some particular assumptions and some particular reasoning that was used to arrive at the doctrine?

And you're making a false analogy

I didn't make a claim of the form "X is analogous to Y." So you are objecting to an analogy that I allegedly made, but you haven't even specified what the analogy is.

If you look back in this thread, you will observe that you asked: "After all, how do you define a 'native American'? How long do your ancestors have to have lived on this continent?"

That seems to presume that it's simply a question of how long.

It's not clear why it was wrong for me to ask whether or not length of time is the issue when some formerly independent nations have been annexed or occupied and we want to know whether or not it would be foolish to think of them as anything but a part of a larger country.

Note that I did not ask for you to tell me what the length of time is. I asked "Is there some amount of time after which" it is foolish to think of the formerly independent nations as anything but parts of a larger country.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. I didn't think I'd NEED to specify what the analogy was;

I should have thought it to be readily apparent to anyone whith a scrap of intelligence or the barest of reading comprehension skills (especially since you only made one, and it was perfectly clear from the wording of my response what it was). But since you're having trouble:

Suppose that after the German government annexed Austria and occupied Czechoslovakia, it had not annexed, occupied, attacked or invaded any other countries. Is there some amount of time after which it would have been foolish to think of Austria and Czechoslovakia as anything but parts of Germany?

Not to mention that you completely miss my point, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the status of 'formerly independent nations' and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that your rather bizarre doctrine utterly ignores the fact that someone born in America (note: not the United States, which is a political entity, but upon the continent, which is a geographic entity) whose ancestors, for CENTURIES, were ALSO born in America, who is thoroughly culturally assimilated (so that such a person has few, if any, remaining cultural ties to any place BUT America) cannot be considered anything BUT an American. Just as the tenth-generation descendant of French Protestants who settled in Germany in the 1600's is a German, or the descendant of Germans who settled in Saint Petersburg is a Russian. As such, the idea that no-one save American Indians ought to have any right to land ownership is an absurdity (would you argue that my hypothetical Germanised Frenchman or Russified German ought to give up any rights or claims he has in favour of 'real' Germans or Russians? That's ridiculous).

[Boojatta]

33. Whatever level I'm at now, I'd like to increase

my intelligence and improve my reading comprehension skills.

you completely miss my point, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the status of 'formerly independent nations'

You are free to claim that X has nothing to do with Y, but I prefer to give myself the freedom to consider various combinations of ideas. For one thing, it's often difficult to confirm with certainty that X has nothing to do with Y. For another thing, even if X really does have nothing to do with Y, that doesn't necessarily imply that study of Y won't have any educational benefits when it comes time to study X.

the idea that no-one save American Indians ought to have any right to land ownership is an absurdity

Okay, but what does that have to do with the Original Post? For example, surely it's possible to own things that one did not inherit, no?

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. ...

You can 'consider various combinations of ideas' all you like; that doesn't change the fact that the particular combination of ideas you're considering has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said and is therefore completely asinine by way of response.

And it's certainly possible to own something that one did not inherit, but conversely if one may not dispose of something one owns as one sees fit (by inheritance or otherwise), then one can't be said to 'own' it in any meaningful sense, only to have the use of it in one's lifetime; therefore, you necessarily imply that under this doctrine of yours none but American Indians should have the right of land ownership.

[Boojatta]

37. Are we discussing the precise meaning of the word "own"?

if one may not dispose of something one owns as one sees fit (by inheritance or otherwise), then one can't be said to 'own' it in any meaningful sense, only to have the use of it in one's lifetime;

If a person leaves instructions to be buried after death and the body is dug up by grave robbers, then did that person never actually own, in any meaningful sense, his or her "own" body?

Would it be wrong to speak of ownership of patent rights even if patent rights persisted through the lifetime of an inventor and not just for 17 or 20 years?

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Now you're just drifting further afield into utter nonsense.

If a person wills his property to his grandson and it's burgled from said grandson's house, he still owned it; you're talking about illegal externalities that have no bearing whatever on the core of the issue.

As to patent rights, I'd say that's different; you can't own an idea in the way that you can own a wristwatch or an automobile or a house. One is tangible, the other is not. All a patent does is grant a legal monopoly on the idea for a fixed term.

[Boojatta]

42. A couple of questions

If a person wills his property to his grandson and it's burgled from said grandson's house, he still owned it; you're talking about illegal externalities that have no bearing whatever on the core of the issue.

You're right. I was wrong.

Is the main issue the actual transfer of property or is the main issue the legal status of a last will and testament?

Suppose a particular person (to be referred to as "PP" for "particular person") buys a plot of land for his or her grave rather than leaving instructions for it to be purchased after death. Suppose that at some time in the future a significant fraction of valuable city land is devoted to graves of people who died long ago (long ago from the point of view of that future time). If a government were to sell for development land that includes PP's grave, then would you say that PP had never actually owned the land?

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. No.

The dead can't own anything, and land ownership as a legal conceit is subject to certain stipulations--right of expropriation by eminent domain (or compulsory purchase, as it's known in the UK), is reserved by the government; there's what's called 'allodial' title, in which ultimate 'ownership' of land is vested in the Crown (in UK and Commonwealth countries) or in the state (in the US); the individual ownership of land is in 'fee simple' (which is absolute except as regards government powers such as eminent domain and taxation). Appropriation of land via eminent domain or through forfeiture for unpaid taxes doesn't alter the basic legal fact of ownership prior to such appropriation.

On edit: note that the foregoing applies to countries with a legal system based on English common law.

[Boojatta]

43. Some Czechified ethnic Germans were already expelled from Czechoslovakia

(would you argue that my hypothetical Germanised Frenchman or Russified German ought to give up any rights or claims he has in favour of 'real' Germans or Russians? That's ridiculous).

No, but I also don't have a solution for the problems described in the following article. Do you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3528506.stm

[Retired AF Dem]

25. My mother passed last week

My dad has severe heart problems and I fear he won't be here long. My sister Beth bless her heart quit her job to take care of my Mom, brother Scott (autistic) and my Niece Terry who is severely crippled with spinal bifida. (Terrys mother, my youngest sister died in 91) If my dad should die my sister should get the land and the house so she can continue to take care of my brother and niece. It is kind of hard to take care of these problems living on the street.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Yes. It Makes Absolutely Zero Sense.

[welshTerrier2]

35. whatever is necessary to destroy the inter-generational overclass

i don't think our inheritance laws need to go as far as the OP describes ... while i appreciate the egalitarian objectives of having each of us "make it on our own without a big boost from mommy and daddy", i also don't think we should block parents from passing something on to their kids ...

for me, the greater issue around inheritance is building a fair society that upholds the democratic ideals it preaches ... we cannot have a democracy when our inheritance laws promote a permanent overclass ...

i would put a cap on how much can be passed down through an estate ... the amount might be $1 million; it might be more ... the goal would be to remove the corrupting influence of big money on our democracy ... while i also support campaign finance reform and lobby reform, i don't think either has ever worked and therefore conclude that some form of capping wealth and inheritances must be considered ...

letting some batters start out on third base because their dads once hit a triple is just not healthy for the game of baseball ...

[slackmaster]

38. Racist bullcrap with no redeeming value

How's that?

[Boojatta]

39. Let's suppose that the doctrine has no redeeming value.

Can we conclude that there can be no redeeming value in discussions launched in response to mention of the doctrine?

Suppose that at least 95% of the land in Mecca that is inherited within the next 40 years will be inherited by Arabs. Would you conclude that people who own land in Mecca are racists?

[slackmaster]

41. Yes, there is no redeeming value in the discussion

You posted a race-charged flame-bait idea. Now deal with what you got.

Suppose that at least 95% of the land in Mecca that is inherited within the next 40 years will be inherited by Arabs. Would you conclude that people who own land in Mecca are racists?

More race-baiting? No thanks.

[cigsandcoffee]

44. Yes. It's ridiculous.

Government is not necessarily benevolent like Robin Hood. Private transference of wealth is an important safegaurd against a police state, and as much a civil right as freedom of speech.

[JHB]

46. Why?

If you're going to put it out for discussion, then discuss it.

[Tyler Durden]

47. I have no problem at all with inheritance...

...as long as you tax the living shit out of it. Like we DON'T do.

[Hosnon]

48. Ridiculous. And non-American Indians can just "sell" their property to

their kids for some small sum or "abandon" it and let their kids adversely possess it.

[Toots]

49. Funny the Indian had no concept of owning the land until white man came

They thought it strange and funny that white man thought they could own the land...It was basically because of this concept that they were so humiliated and destroyed.