Тег: Inheritance

Can a libertarian society withstand the pressure of hereditary inequality?

Imagine this: one person works hard their entire life, building a business from scratch—while another is born with a “silver spoon” in their mouth and receives millions without lifting a finger. A couple of generations pass—the grandchildren of magnates bask in luxury, while the descendants of laborers barely make ends meet. Unfair? Absolutely. And with each new generation, the gap only grows.

Of course, a person has the right and freedom to dispose of their labor and property. But it’s important to understand those who feel a boiling sense of injustice within. Imagine: you strive, you slog away, and next to you, some privileged kids live off the interest of their grandmother’s capital and look down on everyone else. It hurts, right? And although life never promised to be fair, you still want everyone to have a chance, not just those lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family. It is a serious question: how to ensure the stability of society amidst accumulating inequality—while remaining true to the principles of freedom?

To start, a bit of optimism. It is often said: “the first generation earns, the second squanders, the third begs.” Often, that is exactly what happens: the grandfather built a fortune, the son spent it all—and the grandson has nothing left to inherit. Wealth without effort slips through the fingers, so part of the accumulated inequality dissolves on its own over time.

But relying solely on this is cold comfort. Yes, many “golden children” sooner or later end up with nothing. But there are also families like the Rockefellers, who manage to stay at the top for many generations. They say their secret is simple: they force every new heir to work no less than the previous one. No free rides—if you want to use the family capital, multiply it. Such an approach helps preserve wealth for a long time.

So what should we, as a society, do? We want to preserve freedom and create more opportunities for everyone. How can this be achieved?

First, fair competition and equal rules for all. If a wealthy heir conducts business poorly, they should go bankrupt like anyone else—no special privileges or state monopolies. Without friendly officials, even a huge inheritance is not insured against bankruptcy. Conversely, a talented and hardworking person, even without connections, will be able to break through if obstacles are not placed in their way. Competition is the best equalizer when it is truly free.

Second, equality of opportunity. A talented child from a poor family should have the opportunity to study and realize their potential, rather than remaining poor forever simply because of the circumstances of their birth. Society, through private foundations, scholarships, and mentoring, can facilitate this. In the end, everyone wins: more talented and productive people will emerge. By the way, many wealthy people understand this and invest in education and startups—investing in the future.

Third, a culture of responsibility. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. If you were born into wealth, it is not your achievement, but it is also no reason to rest on your laurels. Consider it an advance that must be justified. Many heirs do exactly that: instead of a life of leisure, they start their own business or engage in science—trying to leave their own mark.

Finally, social elevators—the opportunities to rise from the “bottom.” Fortunately, the free market regularly provides chances for the talented and energetic. An example is WhatsApp founder Jan Koum: he arrived in the States as a poor immigrant, and a couple of decades later sold his creation for billions. No titles or special connections were required—only an idea and perseverance. There are many such stories, and they are inspiring: even without any “silver spoon,” it is possible to make it in life.

It turns out that the recipe for stability under freedom is this: ensure that the “playing field” remains fair and open to all. Yes, some have a head start from the beginning of the game—wealthy parents did their part. But the game is not lost as long as others have the opportunity to make their move. The most dangerous thing is if the rules of the game begin to be written for the chosen few. This must not be allowed to happen!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Tell me everything about inheritance under ancap

How will the order of inheritance be distributed without a will? What if there are no heirs? And if my debts exceed the inheritance and there is no guarantor/insurance, will they pass to someone else?

Neprizivnoy

Ancap implies the decentralization of dispute resolution procedures, which automatically means the absence of rigid rules imposed from above regulating the issue of inheritance. Therefore, I cannot say exactly how a particular piece of property or debts will be divided, but I can speculate on how this issue will be resolved locally in substance.

Rights are claims that have been accepted. Upon the death of a person who owned certain property, various people may raise claims to that property. Who eventually gets the property and in what shares depends primarily on who accepts the corresponding claims and how easily. In the most obvious cases, for example, if the deceased had a bitcoin wallet and their household members also had access to the keys, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to contest their claims to own the bitcoins. Similarly, if the deceased lived in their own house, their household members automatically become the factual owners of the house after their death, and contesting their rights to this inheritance would mean putting forward a claim to evict them, which requires extremely strong grounds. It is likely that relatives or friends of the deceased living separately would find it difficult to justify their rights to any share in something where other people were already factual co-owners with the benefactor.

But what about property that the deceased owned solely and to which their cohabitants have no direct access? For example, they owned a company. The keys to the company office are held by the cleaning lady, but it is unlikely that her claims to seize the office based on factual access to the premises would be taken seriously by anyone. Nevertheless, if none of the deceased’s relatives took a direct part in the business and no instructions regarding the property were left by the deceased, it would not be surprising if the company were stripped by its employees or misappropriated by someone in management — either individually or in cooperation with some colleagues. This would simply mean that the property rights to this business were poorly established. Of course, the more established the surrounding market, the less likely such a situation is, and most likely the ownership of the company has long been tokenized, and the rules for the transfer of tokens to other hands were described, including taking into account the possible death of the owner. For instance, the Montelibero Foundation and the entire tokenomics developed around it are only a year and a half old, and we already have such possibilities fixed in certain agreements — after all, predictability of rules is a very important element of the investment climate.

Finally, let’s talk about debts. Of course, a creditor’s claim for the return of a debt is quite strong. Therefore, it is clear that in conditions of a developed market and properly recorded obligations, it will not be difficult for the creditor to recover a share of the deceased’s property toward the debt. If the amount of debts clearly exceeds the amount of divisible assets, then we have a bankruptcy case. In this situation, all claimants to the property will have to agree on who gets how much, and if an amicable agreement cannot be reached, then recourse to a court will be inevitable — they cannot exactly go to war, after all.

In general, I want to note that ancap is not only anarchy, but also capitalism, meaning developed market relations. All existing legal findings, especially from the sphere of common law, will not disappear, and in various disputed cases, they will certainly be appealed to. Foolish litigation, reducing to a competition of whose lawyer is more expensive and who paid the judge more, is unlikely under ancap due to the decentralized nature of law enforcement. But the desire to assert one’s rights itself will not disappear, which means that work for lawyers will not vanish.