Inherited Debt and Theft

Ethics
1

I was wondering about three similar scenarios regarding the offspring/inheritors of a debtor or a thief.

Scenario 1 - Suppose Amy steals jewelry from Betty and gets away with it. Time passes, and, nearing death, Amy sells the watch and gives the money to her daughter via her will. But Betty, who has not recovered the jewelry, transfers fewer assets to her own daughter as a result. Does Amy Jr. owe Betty Jr. the value of the stolen jewelry?

Scenario 2 - Suppose a progressive/socialist/welfare statist president - Marl Karx - imposes a tax but is then voted out of office and passes away soon thereafter. Presumably, President Karx owes his people a heavy debt. Would Karx’s sons/daughters inherit from him the debt that he owed his people?

Scenario 3 - Jim’s parents die in debt. Is it moral for his parents to pass their debt on to Jim (through their will), so that Jim will have to pay off the remaining debt for them?

Thanks!

2

Scenario 1: Yes. Doesn’t have anything to do with inheriting debt though, theft is not debt. Stolen property has to be returned.

The rest: no, debt is not “inherited”. Instead, if a person who dies has debts, that person’s estate has to pay off his debts to the extent it is possible. Afterwards, whatever wealth/property is left (if any) goes to the heirs. The person in charge of the estate is called the executor. It’s his job to make sure that debtors are paid off first.

If the debt exceeds the value of the estate, then the heirs get nothing. But they don’t inherit the debt left over. That debt is simply erased.

This is an important distinction (between the estate and the heir), even when the heir happens to also be the executor of the estate. One of the reasons why it’s important is because the estate’s debt (as far as I know) cannot affect the heir’s credit rating (it’s not his debt, it’s the estate’s debt).

P.S. there are even some exceptions to the rule “debtors get paid off first”, depending on the nature of the debt, as well as the type of estate in question. There are types of debt that cannot be collected from the estate (for instance, I don’t think a credit card company could collect debt off of an estate that consists of just one house, being passed down to an adult child who lives in it). At that point, that debt is simply erased.

 

3

One last, more general observation, regarding your questions not just in this thread, but a couple of other ones as well:

Western law departs from the principle of individual rights in a couple of areas: taxation, business regulations, and safety/environmental regulations. Aside from those three areas, it operates pretty much on the same principles (of individual rights) as Objectivism.

So, a lot of these situations are answered the same way by Objectivists and mainstream legal scholars, and for the same underlying reasons. And mainstream legal scholars have covered a lot more territory than Objectivists, so the various legal sites are an excellent place to find answers to your questions. In fact, I find that the quality of answers on mainstream sites are better…a lot of self professed Objectivists are actually anarchists/libertarians (sometimes even socialists), and are at odds with Ayn Rand’s views on law and politics. Unless your answer comes from an Objectivist intellectual Ayn Rand approved of, you can’t count on it being an accurate reflection of her philosophy.

4

10 hours ago, Nicky said:

And mainstream legal scholars have covered a lot more territory than Objectivists, so the various legal sites are an excellent place to find answers to your questions. In fact, I find that the quality of answers on mainstream sites are better…a lot of self professed Objectivists are actually anarchists/libertarians (sometimes even socialists), and are at odds with Ayn Rand’s views on law and politics. Unless your answer comes from an Objectivist intellectual Ayn Rand approved of, you can’t count on it being an accurate reflection of her philosophy.

And you, Nicky, are an Objectivist intellectual Ayn Rand approved of? If you’re not (and I would wager good money that you’re not), then why should I take it from you who (or what website) is in agreement with Objectivism, since you’re saying that many self-professed Objectivists are actually something else, and their opinions are not necessarily accurate reflections of “her philosophy,” and therefore one should only trust what comes from official/approved sources?

But that’s nonsense. Everyone has to judge for himself, individually, as to what is consonant with Objectivism – according to his own understanding of the philosophy, for better or worse. And what is more – and far more important than deciding what is consonant with Objectivism – every individual must decide for himself what is correct, to the best of his ability. What is true. Tempting a notion as it may be for some, there is no actual shortcut for learning and thinking and judging for oneself.

Furthermore, the question of whether Rand “approved” of some intellectual, presumably before her death in 1982, has very little to do with whether or not that intellectual’s opinions in 2016 would either reflect her own, or be consistent with the principles of Objectivism, or be correct (none of the which are necessarily the same).

1 Like
5

25 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

… Everyone has to judge for himself…

Nicky really was not advising the OP where to find a source most consistent with Objectivism. Rather, he was advising OP not to look for such a source as a primary. When it comes to this topic, this is good advice for the following reasons:

  1. Objectivism is for property rights, and for protection of those rights, by a police, courts, etc. that are part of a government. However, it does not go much further… into the details of legal philosophy.

  2. Property rights – even if much narrower than what Objectivism recommends, and even if often restricted to certain sub-populations – have been around for ages. So, many legal systems – for ages – have dealt with issues like robbers who steal property and hand it to someone else, or given it to their children, and so forth.

Anyone trying to come up with a legal system based on Objectivism should start with actual examples of crimes and  should study the ways in which people have tried to deal with them. The reason is that many of these practices have evolved from trial and error. Of course, one would throw away arguments/reasoning based on religion, etc. . British common-law is particularly useful, because it is based on a system that allowed for evolution and variation at a very nitty-gritty level. Starting with Objectivism, and using that as a primary focus, would be a rationalistic approach. Instead, one should start with actual details of an evolved reason-based system and explore the rationale behind the rules. Then, one can apply one’s knowledge of Objectivism to this to see what to retain etc.

On the OP’s two examples…

On theft… a thief does not have legal title to stolen goods (by definition). Not having such title, how can ever pass the title to someone else? Typically, legal systems allow the title to pass to certain “innocent third-party receivers” in some situations.  In some cases, legal systems will require a buyer to make certain checks of legality, and will allow title to pass if the buyer did those checks. Often, a legal system has different rules for an innocent buyer as opposed to someone (e.g. a child) who was given the stolen goods for free. In addition, most Western legal systems have rules that limit the number of years within which certain crimes must be prosecuted. There’s a history of cases behind these rules. That’s what one needs to study first. Then, one has to ask if they’re consistent with the overall philosophy of Objectivism.

 

 

6

17 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Nicky really was not advising the OP where to find a source most consistent with Objectivism.

No, he was speaking in generalities on that score. He was saying explicitly and directly, however, that when it comes to “consistency with Objectivism” on questions such as these, that he finds “that the quality of answers on mainstream sites are better,” and that, “unless your answer comes from an Objectivist intellectual Ayn Rand approved of, you can’t count on it being an accurate reflection of her philosophy.”

That’s what I was responding to. An individual cannot rely upon some stamp of approval to determine either the consistency of some position with Objectivism, or its more fundamental correctness (and having such a stamp of approval does not mean that one’s opinions are either consistent or correct); the only way to know either is through independent judgement, and there is no shortcut.

17 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Rather, he was advising OP not to look for such a source as a primary. When it comes to this topic…

“This topic?” Which topic?

The OP has been asking several different questions over various threads, including here a question on morality.

17 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

…this is good advice for the following reasons:

  1. Objectivism is for property rights, and for protection of those rights, by a police, courts, etc. that are part of a government. However, it does not go much further… into the details of legal philosophy.

That’s true. That doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with asking questions which attempt to apply the fundamentals of Objectivist philosophy to legal philosophy – or to attempt to answer those questions. In fact, that’s the very sort of development we are interested in, is it not?

17 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

  1. Property rights – even if much narrower than what Objectivism recommends, and even if often restricted to certain sub-populations – have been around for ages. So, many legal systems – for ages – have dealt with issues like robbers who steal property and hand it to someone else, or given it to their children, and so forth.

Anyone trying to come up with a legal system based on Objectivism should start with actual examples of crimes and  should study the ways in which people have tried to deal with them. The reason is that many of these practices have evolved from trial and error. Of course, one would throw away arguments/reasoning based on religion, etc. . British common-law is particularly useful, because it is based on a system that allowed for evolution and variation at a very nitty-gritty level. Starting with Objectivism, and using that as a primary focus, would be a rationalistic approach. Instead, one should start with actual details of an evolved reason-based system and explore the rationale behind the rules. Then, one can apply one’s knowledge of Objectivism to this to see what to retain etc.

That laws exist, or understanding their historical development is certainly useful information, but it doesn’t definitively answer what the laws ought to be or why. That said, I know that I’ve seen the idea that laws and social institutions were developed through “trial and error” employed in the defense of all manner of outcomes, including our current mixed-economy. I don’t think that the fact that laws were developed through “trial and error,” or “at a very nitty-gritty level,” is itself useful. Very bad laws were made the very same way.

So yes, it can certainly be a part of any given conversation as to what the law currently says, and our best understanding of how it came to be that way – that can be very useful – but we must still employ what we understand of our philosophy in order to decide which parts to keep (if any), and which to modify, and why.

There’s no part of the OP’s questions in this thread which imply any “rationalism.” He is asking questions of either self-professed Objectivists, or at least this community (whatever he thinks this community to be), as to the application of philosophy to legal and moral matters. I think that’s fair game. I think that’s part and parcel to philosophical investigation. And if he mistakes Objectivism as to imply answers which are not typical of mainstream practices, well I suppose that’s to be expected for a philosophy which is sometimes touted as “radical.” But no matter: we can still answer those questions to the best of our ability, should we choose.

7

11 hours ago, DonAthos said:

And you, Nicky, are an Objectivist intellectual Ayn Rand approved of? If you’re not (and I would wager good money that you’re not), then why should I take it from you who (or what website) is in agreement with Objectivism, since you’re saying that many self-professed Objectivists are actually something else, and their opinions are not necessarily accurate reflections of “her philosophy,” and therefore one should only trust what comes from official/approved sources?

But that’s nonsense. Everyone has to judge for himself, individually, as to what is consonant with Objectivism – according to his own understanding of the philosophy, for better or worse. And what is more – and far more important than deciding what is consonant with Objectivism – every individual must decide for himself what is correct, to the best of his ability. What is true. Tempting a notion as it may be for some, there is no actual shortcut for learning and thinking and judging for oneself.

Oh wow, you just changed my life, man. No one ever told me to think for myself before. I never imagined that is even an option. Things will definitely change for me now that you opened my eyes to a whole other world.

Either that, or your pretentiously stated the obvious, and helped no one in any way by doing so. I’m not here in need of being told to think for myself, OP isn’t here in need of being told to think for himself, in fact no one is here in need of being told to think for themselves. WE ALREADY KNOW. You can stop the sermon and get off the pulpit now.

This has nothing to do with “thinking for yourself”. OP is here because he read/heard about Ayn Rand, and became interested in her perspective on various topics. I gave him some advice on how to find answers from people who have a similar perspective. That’s what he’s looking for. That’s what everyone who comes to this site is looking for. Not someone pretentiously stating the obvious by telling them how important it is to think for yourself, and not anarchists or socialists spewing their political opinions.

And no, “everyone has to judge for himself, individually” doesn’t cover it. NO ONE can judge everything for themselves. EVERYONE has to trust other people’s judgement to some extent. The reason why OP might trust my judgement on where to find intelligent, rational answers is because, hopefully, he found me to be intelligent and honest in my previous answers to his questions. If he did that, then he now has enough trust in me to consider my advice.

That’s how judgement works. We don’t just go around judging everything for ourselves, and ignoring everyone else’s judgement. We judge people, and then we defer to their judgement to the extent we judged it to be valuable.

8

30 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Oh wow, you just changed my life, man. No one ever told me to think for myself before. I never imagined that is even an option. Things will definitely change for me now that you opened my eyes to a whole other world.

Either that, or your pretentiously stated the obvious, and helped no one in any way by doing so. I’m not here in need of being told to think for myself, OP isn’t here in need of being told to think for himself, in fact no one is here in need of being told to think for themselves. WE ALREADY KNOW.

But what you might not know, Nicky, is that deference to “approved” intellectuals is something like mental impotence. This, for instance:

Quote

Unless your answer comes from an Objectivist intellectual Ayn Rand approved of, you can’t count on it being an accurate reflection of her philosophy.

is garbage. And I fear that you might not know that it is garbage, because you’re the one who said it, and offered it to others as advice. It is a mentally cowardly attitude. I don’t know whether “think for yourself” is advice you can use, but that seems to be what’s called for in the face of the above.

30 minutes ago, Nicky said:

You can stop the sermon and get off the pulpit now.

Say sensible things and I won’t feel the desire to correct them.

9

15 hours ago, Nicky said:

And no, “everyone has to judge for himself, individually” doesn’t cover it.

For those who aren’t among the anarchists and socialists, pretending to be Objectivists (Nicky missed the statists, for some absolutely unguessable reason; there are also self-professed Objectivists here and elsewhere who are statists, when you scratch them), and for those who are so unsure of their own capacity to judge – so mentally flaccid – that they need pronouncements from authoritative sources on what to believe, here is Leonard Peikoff (an Objectivist intellectual Ayn Rand approved of!) saying essentially the same thing that I had said (from “Fact and Value,” emphasis added):

Quote

 

Anyone else’s interpretation or development of [Ayn Rand’s] ideas, my own work emphatically included, is precisely that: an interpretation or development, which may or may not be logically consistent with what she wrote. In regard to the consistency of any such derivative work, each man must reach his own verdict, by weighing all the relevant evidence.

 

To disregard this admonition – to take Peikoff’s word on such interpretations or developments of Rand’s philosophy, because she had approved of him, as such – is to set another man’s judgement above one’s own. This is a betrayal of the fundamental Objectivist virtue of independence, for as Rand said (from Galt’s Speech in Atlas Shrugged):

Quote

Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

 

10

3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

For those who aren’t among the anarchists and socialists, pretending to be Objectivists (Nicky missed the statists, for some absolutely unguessable reason;

Well, if you look around the internet, you’d run into people who are professed anarchists despite professing to be Objectivists. So the point would be that all you can say is the Objectivist answer can only be figured out from Rand’s words or the words she explicitly supported. Anything else is a matter of seeing what’s true, what’s compatible, what’s wrong, etc. In this case, it so happens mainstream legal scholars will probably provide a good answer as to what would reflect Rand’s thoughts on law - except for the areas Nicky mentioned. The best place to look for more information are from those sort of people. Random Objectivist blogger would be a bad option. 

11

 

On 7/4/2016 at 7:53 PM, Eiuol said:

Well, if you look around the internet, you’d run into people who are professed anarchists despite professing to be Objectivists.

Where???  :mellow:

 

On 7/4/2016 at 7:53 PM, Eiuol said:

Anything else is a matter of seeing what’s true, what’s compatible, what’s wrong, etc. 

But… Isn’t that the case with everything? Always? And isn’t that fact (that everything we can ever do requires some amount of “figuring it out”) one of the most basic tenets of proper, in-Rand’s-own-words Objectivism?

I know this is a particularly sensitive subject (since it cuts right to the core of the Peikoff/Kelley issue) and you don’t have to answer, if I seem to be pointing out the obvious. I just wanted to point it out anyway.

 

On 7/4/2016 at 0:36 AM, Nicky said:

I gave him some advice on how to find answers from people who have a similar perspective. That’s what he’s looking for. That’s what everyone who comes to this site is looking for.

 

You don’t have to respond either but, for the record, I don’t.

If I wanted Ayn Rand’s opinion on X, I’d read what she actually wrote about it. For the most part, I have. I get it; it’s done; what I’m interested in now is the ongoing expansion, application and dispersion of those ideas.

 

Call me radical, but I think Objectivism is bigger than Ayn Rand. For the record.