Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions.
Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime.
"Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.
Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions.
FYI this does happen for companies. It's not that wild. Businesses like Lloyds of London and Greene King are paying slavery reparations today despite the fact that no one in the company had anything directly to do with that part of the business. I guess if you had stock that had been passed down through generations you would indirectly lose out on some money if the share price fell as a result.
This is not collective punishment. There are already laws where children have to give up inheritance because it was created with illegal activities. There are laws against illegal dumping of dangerous chemicals. It is not too far fetched idea that existing laws can be used to recover some of damages caused by this.
No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion), someone shouldn't get to inherit millions of dollars just because their grandfather committed some terrible crime -- inheritance should not be a right, when the original money was acquired illegally.
>Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions.
I'm not a libertarian myself, but I miss the libertarianism of Silicon Valley and HN. They are still around, but there's a lot more progressives around and there is a very real authoritarian and violent strain that runs through that movement.
No, I do not. If my grandfather left my father $X, my father left me $Y, at the very most the maximum would have to be the lesser of $X and $Y, decremented by the full cost of answering the lawsuit.
This is problematic from a variety of practical angles, though, not just mathematical ones. It seems like something the forensic accounting lobby would salivate over.
Should I be forced to defend a lawsuit because my great^6 grandfather owned slaves? (As far as I know, none did.) That’s more abhorrent than legally dumping chemicals that today’s common sense says should have been done differently.
The only think which could in anyway get close to legality would be to:
- Legally hold a case against whoever did it and win it. (Can even legally have a case against a dead person?) This requires thinks to have been illegal when done.
- Requiring that (likely dead) person to pay a fine based on existing law.
- Arguing that whoever accepted an inheritance did inherit the fine, too.
But as far as I know every point of this list has many legally questionable aspects.
But what you MUST NOT do under any circumstances in a state of law is to not base judgement on law but arbitrary "I feel like this should be done" arguments. This is also why it's of upmost importance to fast adapt laws make them general instead of specific and not put any loop holes in them. Because then you can judge people to some degree even if they do something bad even if that specific think wasn't explicitly forbidden. (E.g. based on a generic law which makes any form of causing environmental damage in a context where it's reasonable to assume it the person should have been aware illegal. Sure you need some threshold, too. Else driving your care is illegal.)
But if you grandfather lost all of $X, your father would not have any of $Y (based entirely on $X being an amount they got from business dealings and $Y being a smaller amount which came from $X).
Having a period after death for the government to bring charges against the estate seems reasonable. We already have this, but I could see a reasonable person arguing to make it a longer period.
I think it's unreasonable for the same reason getting rid of all statutes of limitations would be unreasonable. At some point, you have to let people stop looking over their shoulder. Society doesn't work very well when you incentivize people to dig up century old dirt on their enemies.
darkcha0s|5 years ago
Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime.
"Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.
onion2k|5 years ago
FYI this does happen for companies. It's not that wild. Businesses like Lloyds of London and Greene King are paying slavery reparations today despite the fact that no one in the company had anything directly to do with that part of the business. I guess if you had stock that had been passed down through generations you would indirectly lose out on some money if the share price fell as a result.
antonvs|5 years ago
You're being very emotional about what seems like a pretty clear case of recovering ill-gotten gains.
lol636363|5 years ago
CJefferson|5 years ago
Craighead|5 years ago
[deleted]
NeutronStar|5 years ago
[deleted]
macspoofing|5 years ago
I'm not a libertarian myself, but I miss the libertarianism of Silicon Valley and HN. They are still around, but there's a lot more progressives around and there is a very real authoritarian and violent strain that runs through that movement.
sokoloff|5 years ago
This is problematic from a variety of practical angles, though, not just mathematical ones. It seems like something the forensic accounting lobby would salivate over.
Should I be forced to defend a lawsuit because my great^6 grandfather owned slaves? (As far as I know, none did.) That’s more abhorrent than legally dumping chemicals that today’s common sense says should have been done differently.
dathinab|5 years ago
The only think which could in anyway get close to legality would be to:
- Legally hold a case against whoever did it and win it. (Can even legally have a case against a dead person?) This requires thinks to have been illegal when done.
- Requiring that (likely dead) person to pay a fine based on existing law.
- Arguing that whoever accepted an inheritance did inherit the fine, too.
But as far as I know every point of this list has many legally questionable aspects.
But what you MUST NOT do under any circumstances in a state of law is to not base judgement on law but arbitrary "I feel like this should be done" arguments. This is also why it's of upmost importance to fast adapt laws make them general instead of specific and not put any loop holes in them. Because then you can judge people to some degree even if they do something bad even if that specific think wasn't explicitly forbidden. (E.g. based on a generic law which makes any form of causing environmental damage in a context where it's reasonable to assume it the person should have been aware illegal. Sure you need some threshold, too. Else driving your care is illegal.)
dubcanada|5 years ago
ByteJockey|5 years ago
Having a period after death for the government to bring charges against the estate seems reasonable. We already have this, but I could see a reasonable person arguing to make it a longer period.
I think it's unreasonable for the same reason getting rid of all statutes of limitations would be unreasonable. At some point, you have to let people stop looking over their shoulder. Society doesn't work very well when you incentivize people to dig up century old dirt on their enemies.