For whatever reason, the concept of "inheritance" and helping...
Will Tanner@Will_Tanner_1
18 views
Oct 16, 2024
~5 min read
Advertisement
1
For whatever reason, the concept of "inheritance" and helping children in life has exploded on here the past few days
That discussion has been nonsense, as it has been the Prodigal Sons of the world arguing with the Ebenezer Scrooges of America
So, I'd like to give my take🧵👇
That discussion has been nonsense, as it has been the Prodigal Sons of the world arguing with the Ebenezer Scrooges of America
So, I'd like to give my take🧵👇
2
There are two problems with the discussion
One is that the Prodigal Sons frame access the earned wealth of parents as a right, which is tiresome for obvious reasons
The other is that the Scrooges think not of dynasty or family, but rather in terms of "mine" and the present
Both discussions seemingly ignore the concept of family, and that in a functioning family it is odd for parents and children to not help each other. Instead, it mostly assumes that we're all atomized individuals with a moral right to money at some point or another, either because it was "earned" or because of the familial relationship
It's tiresome because it ignores history, and the point of how Westerners saw wealth for all of history until five minutes ago
Included below are some of the tiresome arguments made
One is that the Prodigal Sons frame access the earned wealth of parents as a right, which is tiresome for obvious reasons
The other is that the Scrooges think not of dynasty or family, but rather in terms of "mine" and the present
Both discussions seemingly ignore the concept of family, and that in a functioning family it is odd for parents and children to not help each other. Instead, it mostly assumes that we're all atomized individuals with a moral right to money at some point or another, either because it was "earned" or because of the familial relationship
It's tiresome because it ignores history, and the point of how Westerners saw wealth for all of history until five minutes ago
Included below are some of the tiresome arguments made
3
Ignored in all that is what the mindset of the West from roughly the Classical Greeks until 1980 or so is this:
Wealth is most honorable when inherited. If earned rather than inherited, it should be spent not on vice-driven pleasure, but invested in a way that allows one's descendants to live as gentlemen and serve the state rather than grubbing for money in a profession or job that takes time that would have been better spent as a legislator, imperial administrator, or officer
Wealth is most honorable when inherited. If earned rather than inherited, it should be spent not on vice-driven pleasure, but invested in a way that allows one's descendants to live as gentlemen and serve the state rather than grubbing for money in a profession or job that takes time that would have been better spent as a legislator, imperial administrator, or officer
4
Important in that is that money is a means to an end: having the financial security to focus on the higher things
That's not a Prodigal Son-style entitlement to familial wealth, but rather a duty, the duty to, if able, put oneself in a higher position in which one can do better things that serve others rather than serving oneself
The duty could be understood as the patriarch of each generation has a duty to steward the assets and avoid selling the capital, and the younger generations have a duty to serve others in an honorable way, generally in service to the state
That's not a Prodigal Son-style entitlement to familial wealth, but rather a duty, the duty to, if able, put oneself in a higher position in which one can do better things that serve others rather than serving oneself
The duty could be understood as the patriarch of each generation has a duty to steward the assets and avoid selling the capital, and the younger generations have a duty to serve others in an honorable way, generally in service to the state
5
Funnily enough, most of those who hate such an idea, hate that assets should be stewarded rather than wasted away on a cruise or spent on paying off a feckless son's credit card debt, love those who lived in such a way
Take George Washington. He was only able to focus on being an officer and serving America, which he did while longing for his farm Cincinatus-style for nearly his whole life, came only because of the income-producing estate he owned and inherited.
Same with Jefferson
Same with Robert E Lee
Same with Andrew Jackson
Same with Lord Salisbury in England (he governed the empire at its height)
Same with Lord Palmerston (he really built the Victorian Empire)
Same with Lord Chatham (he governed England and led it to defeating Napoleon)
In each case, the family's estate, the dynastic wealth stewarded for generations in America and centuries in England, allowed the great men of history to act as such
Take George Washington. He was only able to focus on being an officer and serving America, which he did while longing for his farm Cincinatus-style for nearly his whole life, came only because of the income-producing estate he owned and inherited.
Same with Jefferson
Same with Robert E Lee
Same with Andrew Jackson
Same with Lord Salisbury in England (he governed the empire at its height)
Same with Lord Palmerston (he really built the Victorian Empire)
Same with Lord Chatham (he governed England and led it to defeating Napoleon)
In each case, the family's estate, the dynastic wealth stewarded for generations in America and centuries in England, allowed the great men of history to act as such
6
The ideal set by such men led others, the new men, to emulate it
Thus, when men of the day earned fortunes, they generally didn't spend them on pleasure. Instead, they invested them in hard, income-producing assets like rented farmland and then either served the state themselves or helped their children do so
One great example is Herbert Hoover. He came from utter poverty but made a great deal of money very early in his career, then used the opportunities afforded by that wealth serve America and Europe as an unpaid administrator of charities, of public offices, and even of the presidency. His presidency was a disaster, of course, but the man was the true definition of a public servant who thought only of his countrymen
Thus, when men of the day earned fortunes, they generally didn't spend them on pleasure. Instead, they invested them in hard, income-producing assets like rented farmland and then either served the state themselves or helped their children do so
One great example is Herbert Hoover. He came from utter poverty but made a great deal of money very early in his career, then used the opportunities afforded by that wealth serve America and Europe as an unpaid administrator of charities, of public offices, and even of the presidency. His presidency was a disaster, of course, but the man was the true definition of a public servant who thought only of his countrymen
7
In short, the focus was not on "ease" and pleasure at each generation. That might have been a side effect, and often was, but wasn't the point
The point was that grubbing, for lack of a better word, was no longer a necessity. Instead, service could be. That is the point of a dynasty, and a standard to which those few dynasties that remain still often aspire
What, for example, is the life of an English royal but service? Yes, there are bad apples like Andrew and Harry. But they are rightly seen as awful, as men who betrayed their privilege for the sickening pursuit of pleasure. The rest, however, are like Princess Kate Middleton in that they only serve and their life revolves around presenting a good face to the public that serves as an example
The point was that grubbing, for lack of a better word, was no longer a necessity. Instead, service could be. That is the point of a dynasty, and a standard to which those few dynasties that remain still often aspire
What, for example, is the life of an English royal but service? Yes, there are bad apples like Andrew and Harry. But they are rightly seen as awful, as men who betrayed their privilege for the sickening pursuit of pleasure. The rest, however, are like Princess Kate Middleton in that they only serve and their life revolves around presenting a good face to the public that serves as an example
8
Most of that mindest, of course, has died out. So, instead of gentlemen leading the public and serving as an example, we have dullard bureaucrats and corrupt politicians while the public looks up to feckless and vapid social media personalities and sharp-elbowed plutocrats
That's hardly a change for the better, and much of the decline comes from an unwillingness to live according to duty rather than pleasure
That's hardly a change for the better, and much of the decline comes from an unwillingness to live according to duty rather than pleasure
9
So, unfortunately, I think both sides of this argument largely miss the point
The point of wealth isn't to hoard it like a dragon, spend it like a drunken sailor, or use it to cover fecklessness-incurred debt
It is to enable service of a higher ideal, and those who do otherwise aren't deserving of it, whether they demand it of their parents to enable spending or throw it away on pointless charity rather than passing it to children so that they might continue the tradition
The point of wealth isn't to hoard it like a dragon, spend it like a drunken sailor, or use it to cover fecklessness-incurred debt
It is to enable service of a higher ideal, and those who do otherwise aren't deserving of it, whether they demand it of their parents to enable spending or throw it away on pointless charity rather than passing it to children so that they might continue the tradition
10
This, along with why most of philanthropy is a waste, is much of what @JohannKurtz and I discussed in my new podcast, "The Old World with Will Tanner"
Find the podcast here: theamericantribune.news/p/a-new-show-t…
Find the podcast here: theamericantribune.news/p/a-new-show-t…
