WE aren't doing anything. The people with the wealth can do with it as they see fit. It's not our call to decide how their property is transferred. If they want to cut their idiot son out of the will, the idiot son will have to learn a trade and quick.Exactly. To be consistent, we must not reward children for the deeds of their ancestors neither.
Do you know how easy that would be to take ad absurdum?Absolutely. Inheriting the proceeds of crime is even more "wrong" than inheriting unearned wealth.
How can something be a "right" if it's just up to that? Wouldn't that rightly be considered a privilege or political reality?There are no rights other than what we collectively decide to defend by force. We are perfectly free to decide which "rights" are worth defending.
People say this all the time, but does this really happen in countries with almost no absolute poverty and functional market economies? Usually, the destabilization comes when government largesse is cut, as is happening in France currently.Nothing can be done about people having unequal abilities and luck, but much can be done to ensure that the disparity does not become great enough to result in social unrest that will weaken the society.
The United States, at least, is not a pure democracy. We have a rule of law in place that protects the minority in such a situation. Democracy has limits.If you don't care about fairness and believe that everyone deserves whatever they can get under prevailing circumstances, then why shouldn't the poor simply vote in a radical socialist government if they have the power? That's perfectly righteous in a democracy, isn't it?