“Birthright” is this concept that can easily be accepted without question as cosmically inherent. But when you examine it, it doesn’t really make any sense at all. It’s a great way to perpetuate inequality, especially wholly unearned inequality.
Note I am not arguing that inequality is an unvarnished good or that history isn’t filled with violence and sin. However, that’s a far cry from saying simply that “birthright” doesn’t make sense at least when talking about purely physical items to be inherited.
Land in particular is a special case because more cannot be created (without absolutely massive capital projects and those require some special thinking, but they are outliers).
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-...
I think society needs property tax to perform well, or else people will horde control of land under the mistaken belief that they can sell or rent it for high prices. You need tax to bring people back to reality and force them to use it productively in the present.
Another form is the right of selection -- I have one, here's another one that just become unowned, and I get dibs on choosing that over my own. If I retain my own, the other lapses to the public. If I choose the other, mine does.
Why is it only “cosmically inherent” as long as you don’t hurt others? Has the tiger no cosmically inherent right to his meal? The truth is he doesn’t, he must defend his kill if necessary.
The truth is you must defend what you’ve earned as well, either by force or through mutual agreement (society).
We, as a society, have agreed to grant each other exclusive rights to what we’ve earned. Of course that hasn’t always been the case throughout history. Don’t bring the cosmos into it, it happens through mutual consent, because we choose to.
Your rights are man-made, don’t take them for granted. They only exist so long as everyone agrees they do.
This paragraph doesn’t make any sense at all either.
The reason is that there is no meaning whatsoever to the concept of earned inequality, and therefore no meaning to the idea of ‘unearned’ inequality.