Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumabjorn
The difference, to me, is that the inheritors you mention have to keep up the labor of their predecessors if they want to reap that fruit. The inheritors of authors and musicians don't have to lift a finger. Our societies are built on the premise that we produce, some produce more than others, but still, to have a functional society we are expected to produce. Some of us are physically or mentally not capable, we do our best to take care of those, some societies do more some do less.
So from societies vantage point it seems strange that we would grant some people that are fully capable of being productive members of society a life in perpetual unproductivitiness.
|
I do not entirely agree. The inheritors of dividend bearing stocks do not have to labour to collect their dividends. The inheritors of money do not have to labour to collect interest and can jsut spend the money. The inheritors of a successful business, can have it managed and the products produced by hired staff. Or they can sell the business and live of the proceeds, no labour involved. The inheritors of a house or condo can live in it with the exact same amount of labour as if you had worked hard yourself to buy the property.
You speak as if the inheritors of authors and musicians are getting a free ride that other inheritors whose parents had different professions aren't. An inheritance is admitedly an advantage that many of us aren't privy to.
And no-one has to labour to get an inheritance. They may or may not have to labour to keep it or live of it. Do you think that the inheritors of multi-million gas station chains are out there manning the pumps?
An author's royalties on most books in most cases have died out or slowed to a trickle before the author dies. There are many exceptions, but still a low percentage overall of auther's heirs receving even enough to pay that college tuition that is often referred to as a possible right of the author's children.
You talk as if an authors heirs are living in the lap of luxury of the average of less than $100 a year they may be lucky enough to receive.
Perhaps if an author or musician is successful, and acquires a million or so in cash and other assets that this should revert? Do you feel that the heirs don't deserve that either?
If there are actual royalties paid after an authors death, then the books are still being read and enjoyed. These books themselves are a product that has an intrinsic value that is solely the result of the author's efforts or no-one would be wanting to read them.
And for good or great authors (whom I assume the majority of squawking is about) royalties are sometimes the only legacy they can leave. Saying this person's books should be free because he/she is dead now, doesn't seem like a fitting memorial. It's rather demeaning to the author and his family and a sad statement of the ethics of some the people who admire the author's work.
Helen