Inherited Power is Inherently Wrong

Can you imagine living in a world where the right to govern is determined not by the will of the people but by who your parents are and what your gender is? Can you imagine what it would be like to be born into to poverty without a realistic chance of increasing your wealth?

Regardless of whether you can imagine it or not that’s exactly how the world operated for the vast majority of civilised history as we know it. Fortunately in the late 1700’s the French Revolution ushered in a fairly rapid transition from feudal societies governed by absolute rulers to the republics and democracies we are more familiar with today.

The causes of the French Revolution are complex and well beyond the scope of this, or any single blog post. Just one of the underlying causes was the resentment of the peasant class towards a ruling class which enjoyed absolute rule. The idea of inherited rule and all the privileges that accompanied it was incongruent with the ideas of the enlightenment which emphasised reason and analysis.

To surmise it’s difficult to qualify why someone should rule over others just because of who their father is. The people who govern us should be decided by the people who are being governed and that decision should be based largely on merit.

Presently it’s very uncommon for a nation state or country to be governed by absolute monarchy although there are a few examples such as the Vatican City and Brunei where this is the case. In terms of the politics it seems that most people are against the idea of inherited rule.

However the French Revolution was not just about the politics. It was also about the privilege enjoyed by the few whilst the majority struggled. Once again the ideas espoused by the thinkers of the enlightenment were in conflict with the existing social structure. Most of the privileged people were members of the aristocracy and once again this privilege was inherited rather than earned.  

I’d suggest that presently most people would agree that if a person has worked hard then it is only fair that they should be able to enjoy the privileges which result from their hard work. I’d also suggest that people are resentful of those who enjoy privilege without having worked for it. It is because of this that I am consistently surprised that one of my views, which I believe is pretty self-evident, is hugely unpopular with many other people in my personal experience.   

I do not believe that anyone has the right to inherit vast sums of money. My reasons for this are simple. They have not earned it. They do not deserve it. In the same way that it is deeply unfair for an aristocrat in the 1700’s to be given wealth and privilege simply because of who their parents are, I do not believe that someone should inherit wealth and privilege – wait for it – because of who their parents are.

Before I continue let me clarify that I am not saying that no-one should inherit anything. I’m comfortable with someone inheriting a couple of hundred thousand dollars, maybe even a million. Parents should be able to pass on some of their accumulated wealth to those they care for, but there is a huge difference between passing on some wealth and passing on a free ride. 

Those in favour of inherited wealth have all kinds of arguments. Normally I work hard to provide some balance with my pieces but I can’t work hard enough to provide balance on this issue. That’s because I’m yet to read one single argument for inherited wealth which isn’t in obvious conflict with the ideals of the enlightenment and therefore difficult to qualify.

Perhaps my personal favourite argument for inherited wealth is that society would be damaged if people could not satisfy the procreative urge by enriching their children. So apparently we won’t have children if we can’t guarantee that our kids will be better off than we are. Approximately thirty million births last year in India neatly skewer that idiotic argument.

Another offering is that world economics would suffer because of reduced investment. I am suggesting that someone’s inheritance is diverted – not disappear entirely. Instead of that money going to just one person or maybe a few, it instead goes to government. Now government will no doubt waste some of it, but so will private people inheriting wealth. Paris Hilton has wasted countless millions on her pets alone.

Let’s consider an example near and dear to Australians. James Packer. When Kerry Packer died in 2005 James inherited around seven billion dollars. He has proceeded to shift most of that wealth into casinos which are currently joyfully fleecing pensioners and other vulnerable members of our society of their limited wealth. It’s a great outcome.

Alternatively the government could have received that seven billion. How much could those seven billion dollars have achieved for Australia? Would it have been more beneficial than a sea of one armed bandits? I guess we’ll never know. 

What we do know is that there are a host of self-made very wealthy people who are strongly against inherited wealth. Bill Gates is perhaps the best known of these. Musician Sting is also strongly against inherited wealth. Lastly Warren Buffet has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth according to Forbes Magazine. He’s quoted as saying 'I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing.'

It’s the ‘doing nothing’ part of inherited wealth which I personally find so repugnant. I’m comfortable with someone who has worked to gain more wealth and the privileges that wealth can provide. I’m deeply uncomfortable with someone receiving wealth and the privileges that wealth can provide, without actually doing anything.

Amongst other things currency is supposed to provide society with a common measure of value.  That value can be gained either through the provision of goods and services or the sale of existing produce. In this way those who provide goods, services and produce can be rewarded for this by receiving currency which they can use to secure the goods, services and produce which they require. It’s a simple system that is clearly superior to the barter system which currency replaced.

But what happens when some people are gifted with currency without having to provide goods, services and produce? Is it equitable that some people receive for no effort what other people have had to work for? I’d suggest it’s deeply inequitable and because of that it introduces a flaw into an otherwise very equitable system.

Over time systems evolve. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a social structure, political or an economic system. I’m sure your average Babylonian, Greek or Roman thought their way of life was the best possible and that their system, even with its flaws, would just continue on.

History has repeatedly shown that new thoughts and ideas cause change in systems over time. In my view, people will not be able to inherit wealth in the future as something that is so obviously inequitable can only continue for as long as people will tolerate it.  Perhaps the only question remaining is can we manage the evolution of our existing system without another ‘French Revolution’.