Inheritance and Capitalism: A Debate on Distribution of Wealth

Question 1
No. the Haslett says that there is numerous inequality distribution of wealth which has failed.
Capitalism is thought to be an economic system whereby there is capital is mostly owned by
private actors and those actors are the ones that controls the capital according to their personal
interest. Also the demand and distribution of the capital selects the market prices to the interest
of these actors. Mr. Haslett has identified the most important aspects of capitalism in his research
and has provided an extensive explanation in his book. One of the most important ideas
undelaying capitalism is distribution of capital according to productivity. The main purpose of an
economic system is the production of goods and services in the society. As a matter of fact,
nobody can be forced to produce these goods and services but is somebody’s opinion. Instead we
need to encourage one another to produce goods and services. This can only be done by equally
distributing capital according to productivity.
Another fundamental idea is giving everybody an equal opportunity in the society. This brings a
sense of justice and success also in other sectors. This will also help people to realize their
potential in production thus increasing the overall productivity. It will also give people an
opportunity to explore more and become more professional in production matters. It means
people will no longer be ordinary workers but professionals. Inheritance violets equal
opportunity because it leads to uneven distribution of wealth. Take an example one inherits
million dollars, this is unequal distribution of that particular wealth.
Haslett has also mentioned the idea of freedom. This is with respect to consuming, producing
and investing of the capital. The workers have the freedom to leave their work and pursue some
other works with a better payment to satisfy them. Also those customers who are not satisfied
have the freedom to buy some other some other goods and services of their own choice to satisfy
themselves without any form of discrimination. Investors also have the freedom to pursue some
more lucrative ventures anytime they wish to do so. Any exchange will take place only if both
parties benefits from it. Also the government should play a key role in protecting the rights of
those private citizens and to maintain an environment which is orderly in order to facilitate a well
and proper functioning market.

Question 2
Inheritance in any case would not violet capitalism commitment to freedom in the narrow sense
in that everybody will have equal opportunities in life. People will work hard to attain property
rather than waiting to inherit. Inheritance hinders the government interference with gifts and
bequests. These gifts and bequests and large concentration of economic power resulting from
them contributes to unhealthy functioning of supply and demand. They also create a great
difference in the society such that it will not reflect the needs of the whole population but rule in
favor of the interests of the rich. This inheritance will also interfere with the distribution of goods
and services. As a result, inheritance is the main source of unequal opportunities as some people
lives with an advantage over others. This will result to less people realizing their productivity
potential causing economy supply curves due to less potential. Thus inheritance in the narrow
sense hinder indirectly demand and supply making them become inconsistent with the ideal
spirit. There is no any support inheritance receives from freedom in the narrow sense maybe
from the other relevant ideal for freedom which is the broad sense.
Inheritance for instance helps people to leave their fortunes more so property to the people of
their choice and incase those who are to benefit fail to get them, they will fail to do what they
had planned which of course has consequences at the end. If a person has a lot of wealth, the
increment the wealth will go to satisfy will be less urgent and therefore there will be less utility
the additional wealth will have for one. If the wealth is distributed more evenly, the more overall
utility that particular wealth will have. It is true to say that the more utility of wealth some
amount has for a person, the more the freedom the person enjoys in the broad sense. In general if
the wealth id distributed more evenly, it will give rise to more overall freedom to the person. If
inheritance is abolished in the broad sense, there would be some freedom to diminish marginal
utility. When inheritance is abolished, there will be an equivalent increase in freedom as there
will be equality of opportunities. To those people who start life without inherited property, that is
gifts and bequests, compared to those who initially had this inherited property, to them
abolishing inheritance will be of benefit. This will mean to bring everybody at a relatively equal
starting point. These will leave those people who never had inherited property to enjoy as the
resources will be equally distributed and there will be equality of demand and opportunities, thus
they will be freer in the broad sense.

Question 4
Haslett has clearly indicated some arguments that are contrary to abolishing of inheritance. The
first argument against abolishing inheritance is the case of marriage. He points out that there
should be no any limitations when it comes to inheriting spouse’s property. Since marriage is a
union and the two couples are conjoined together like a venture, despite the fact that maybe only
one partner was responsible for providing all the wealth, the other one had roles that he or she
equally played. Therefore when death separates the couples, for this case, there should be no any
limitations to that kind of inheritance. Another obligation for not abolishing inheritance is the
case of children who are orphans, physically and mentally challenged people and aged people
who may not be able to depend on themselves for a living. This category of people are free to
inherit from whichever source without any limitations. A person will secure enough funds
perhaps inform of a trust that will be able to cater for this person in need maybe to cater for
education for the case of a student or to provide the basic needs for the case of the aged and
dependent people who might not be able to sustain themselves on their own.
Charitable organizations is also another argument that has been ruled in favor of inheritance by
Haslett. Those organizations whose main objectives is to make profit, religious group, scientific
or educational institutions are allowed to inherit. Sometimes the agenda of the organization
might be changed to doing business. In order to maintain the organization objectives, a legal
procedure that corresponds to the government constrains with respect to the property should be
followed correctly. The property this organizations are given must be respected and sold back to
the open market within one year.
Abolishing inheritance will not violate anybody’s right at any cost because inheritance is not tied
to a person’s life. A good example is the case of people who say that denying a child inheritance
will lower him or her morale of working hard. For instance, people say that the child will not
have the desire to look for more instead he or relaxes resulting to less productivity hence national
productivity will fall. One should motivate the children and encourage them to work hard to
obtain their own property. The productivity of a person will not be affected by abolishing
inheritance. Likewise an athlete’s life will not be affected by this abolishment. The same amount