I was reading @edicted's post about inheritance yesterday, while what he was getting at was good, I couldn't stop myself but think about his premise of money being a primitive form of reputation being flawed. Don't get me wrong, we use the money to show off our reputation but that is not an intrinsic value of money. It is we, humans, associating what money represents with the idea of reputation that causes us to see money and wealth as reputation. Money and wealth are not reputations.
I can prove my argument by using the very chain we are on. Hive has a reputation system, we can see people's reputes by that small number after their name. HIVE itself is not a measure of reputation on the chain, but we as humans would assign more repute to people holding more HIVE. If two Hive users with the same reputation but vastly different amounts of Hive talked to you who would you find more reputable? Probably, the one with the more HIVE. But, HIVE never had this intrinsic value, it is you that have assigned it. So why do we do this?
We, humans, have always been resource conscious. It is ingrained in our evolutionary psychology and money represents access to resources. The more money you have, the more resources you could access. When you can access more resources, you would seem more successful hence you would seem more reputable. So, inheritance is not the inheritance of reputation, it is the inheritance of perception of reputation.
Will inheritance get 'outlawed'? I don't think so. Inheritance is just there for the moments the dead could not find the time to transfer their assets to another. If you outlaw inheritance they could just transfer their assets before they die. So "outlawing" inheritance does not solve problems. What is the problem then?
In @edicted's post, he said that if we had more money then it should theoretically show that we extracted less from society than we provided. That is also flawed. When you have any amount of money, that means you precisely extracted that amount of value from society. So, how come some people have more money than others? Society is growing, and the distribution of this growth has been flawed, it still is. This is also why crypto is not some abundance utopia, it is just a newly discovered tool that enables us to distribute the growth much more fairly compared to the legacy system. Society has always been abundant, the distribution is only recently gotten fairer. The problem has always been the distribution of value from societal growth.
Anyway thanks for reading my ramblings, they are just food for thought. I do not know if they are flawed or not and I don't know if my assumptions are necessarily correct. I hope, you enjoyed it though.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
