>> 1) Why should the individuals power over his worldly posessions or his
property end at death ?
>That individuals were smart enough to earn those assets implies a >level
of intelligence to wisely dispose of that wealth upon death, >but such is
not that case with much wealth that is inherited, and >thus, not earned.
What is the difference between: inheriting money, that money being given to
the children just before death, and having parents spend their money to
raise their child ? How can a new born child pay for his mothers milk ?
You're using partly survivalist theory here to justify your view. In that
light:
The money was earned by the parents, who (also upon their death) spend that
money investing in the future wellbeing of their genetic codes.
>Here's a proposal that links in with the clone thread: ANy individual
>has a right to the sanctity of his or her own genetic coding, but is
>also legally and financially responsible for any liabilities incurred >in
the dissemination of said genetic coding. THis brings in a concept >that
one must be able to afford the reproduction of one's coding, >from not only
birth, but to adulthood. Reproduction becomes a long >term investment
(30-40 years to maturity) that one can not collect >on.
Why 30-40 years ?
>of course, this is a politically impossible scenario, as the vast
>majority of people having kids cannot rationally afford to have them
>when they do, adn would go on the warpath against anyone trying to
>interfere with their right to reproduce.
In many european countries wages are based on age, either by law or by the
influence governement (the largest employer) has on wages. Many examples
are known of starting wages 3 times smaller than wages near the end of
careers (for doing the same work). IMO setting those free, would already
solve part of this problem, which is actual, not hypothetical, since many
people here already ethically feel what you are saying here:
> Just as one must demonstrate financial responsibility to drive a car >in
most states (insurance), people should have to demostrate >financial
responsibility to have kids.
Nature gave no individual (1 that is, not 2) the right to reproduce.
We changed that by allowing sperm to be sold commercially, allowing half of
our population that individual right. We also gave ourselves the right NOT
to reproduce.
Weighing the childs individual rights in such matters is difficult. Today
the situation exists (where abortion is legal), where a child is the
property of an individual with 50% (or 51% ;-)) until a few moths before it
is born.
These problems are very difficult ones, and maybe a system should be
developed where kids become 'universal' on different levels. Adding
responsabilities and taking away priviliges once it has proven to be
capable of taking them / doing without them ?
J. de Lyser
Brussels