Octavious - it is true that my football analogy is simplistic, most analogies are, but let's take a real case. Here is a link to a case of the son of Adolfo Hitler's art collector.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27306269

The son never did anything 'wrong'. Should he be allowed to keep all the art that was taken from the Jews? As far as I am aware the father never seized the artwork, but he was ordered to deal with it after it was seized. If the son, or his nominated heirs, arn't allowed to keep the artwork, how should it be distributed?

Steephie, please feel free to answer the above question also.

That's a tough one. I'll think about it later (I was about to go to bed when you sparked my interest), but I'll say this: it's still not a matter where race or religion comes into the equation for me. Therefore, my solution won't be based on that either. Holding that in mind, the solution itself is kind of beside the point in this case I'd say, since we're talking about racism and my solution would leave racism out of the equation.

If we were talking about stolen treasures from Africa, I'd say give it back to Africa. But comparing a tangible to an intangible is not a valid comparison. There is no "giving back" white privilege. And decided who or what is deserving just by akin color is bullshit. Is the small business owner who happens to be a black millionaire more deserving than the white vet suffering from PTS and living on the street? That is what you are saying whme your primary means of judgment is skin color.

Draug - pick up on those points when back from jolly hols

Holy shit, thucy and Jamie are more evil than I thought lol.

What right do you have to tell others to whom they can give their money too?

Thucy is, by far, the most racist person in the forum. First, he has openly admitted on more than one occasion that in his youth he and his friends HELD and ACTED UPON extremely racist AND sexist viewpoints. (Mind you, he is early twenties, hardly removed from this "youth", by the way...) Having gone to college and no-doubt being recognized and called out for the raging bigot and asshole that he is, he has subsequently been so over-come by guilt as his youthful behavior that he has become the champion of all things Non-White Male...he seeks to correct the failings of his youth.

Problem is, at the core, in his heart, he is still the exact same racist and sexist bigot -- and as such he OPENLY ADMITS this his first judgement on anyone he meets is to examine skin color and gender, and thus apply the appropriate level of pity to them as he evaluates how they will NOT be able to succeed in this world because of their skin color and gender - he can not escape the notion that individuals can succeed on their own, regardless of skin color or gender, without the help of a white man.

The most racist, bigotted fool around: Thucy the Noble White Male.

<thucy says> "against racism, you would argue to abolish inheritance as a practice"

Yes, when Oprah dies, we should strip her family of her wealth. When (choose your black professional athlete / music/rap star / movie star / *Al Shaprton* / *Jesse Jackson*) -- Yes, when these individuals die, I think Thucy should be the FIRST to go in front of a camera and suggest that their wealth nor be passed on to their family or whomever else they have choosen to give their money to.

Idiot. Bigotted Fool.

Thucy - Likewise -- upon my parent's death, I trust the Thucy will fight on behalf of me and my siblings of any DEBT my family has incurred that I will inherit instead of wealth.

Idiot. Bigoted fool.

/\ "...to be relieved of any DEBT..." that should say.

@ ILN: "Holy shit, thucy and Jamie are more evil than I thought"

Thank you. Being described as "evil" by a libertarian sociopath like you is a reassuring endorsement that my views are sound.

Jamie - for the record, I don't think you are evil and/or a racist. I actually like you, even though you appear to despise me. :) (There, that should be a knock to your credibility...)

@ Krellin: "upon my parent's death, I trust that Thucy will fight on behalf of me and my siblings to be relieved of any DEBT my family has incurred"

This is an odd statement. In the UK you don't inherit your parents' debts on their death, unless you were complicit in the debt. When the estate is settled, any creditors must be paid off before any other beneficiaries, but if the debts of the estate are greater than the assets of the estate, any outstanding debts which cannot be paid out of the estate are generally written off.

So, imagine that my elderly mother dies, and I am her only living relative. Let's say she was in a nursing home and owned no property. The nursing home's costs had all been taken care of. She had £5,000 in savings in Bank A, but at the point of her death, there was still £7,000 owing on a personal loan from Bank B, in which she was the only person named in the account. On her death, Bank B would have a primary claim, and the funds from her Bank A savings would go to pay off the loan. This would leave £2,000 in debt, which would be written off. I would not inherit the £2,000 of debt.

Is the situation in the USA different?

Jamie, in the US it is situational, depends on the type of debt and what the State laws are where you are. But it is possible to be obligated to part of your deceased parent's debt if I am not mistaken. I'm not a lawyer, though, nor have my parents died. But I do seem to recall some debt collectors coming after my parents upon the death of a grandparent.

Bottom line, though, if you confront Lord White Man...er, I mean Thucy...with the prospect of stripping the wealth from the estate of a successful non-white person, I will almost guarantee he will say that's absurd. (Well, except that now I have called him out on it)

Well, Krellin, I can't speak for Thucy, but I have no such qualms. I am opposed to the inheritance of wealth regardless of who it would stand to be inherited by.

What, you really think your government would redistribute the collected inheritances as they would be supposed to as opposed to keeping it for their own purposes?

Jamie - as long as you are consistent in application of the policy, I can't fault you. Since Thucy's argument as presented seemed to be racially motivated (and not fairness "in general") I would want him to clarify. (Of course, a racialyl biased policy is wrong in so many ways...as if any white (let's say non-black, since Thucy's equality arguments are really usually only about blacks) person with wealth has somehow built it upon the back of slavery (as opposed to say, a very recent immigrant who works his ass off by starting a business and becoming successful, etc) <--- To which Thucy says that he can only build a successful business - say a gas station - in 2014 because of salavery, blah blah blah and so his endless all-things-are-racist argument will go...

bo -- shhhhh....you are exposing the utter lie to their argument...

It's not really a secret, every government does questionable, stupid things, at times even with good intentions.

I'm not convinced people would work very hard at all if they had a chance to spend/live off other peoples wealth via govt hand-outs. What sort of society wants to encourage this behaviour? This would need a lot more explaining before I could get my head around this.
This would exacerbate the 'must have everything now culture', consumerism at its very worst, it's quite a psychotic line of thought.
Consume everything today, no planning for the future, have people really thought this out. I'm all for a fair redistribution of wealth but this crazy scheme would ensure there was nothing to share.
I believe in a meritocracy, people should get what they deserve, not get what they can take ....

OMG! I actually agree with part of Nigee's post! Meritocracy is the backbone of motivation. Without it (pure socialism or even communism), people have no reason to work.

As far as redistribution after death. We have that in the death tax. Any large estate (over 1 million) gets taxe4d extremely heavily. The problem is, the government doesn't redistribute it well. It wastes it.

I'm not convinced people would work very hard at all if they had a chance to spend/live off other peoples wealth via govt hand-outs. What sort of society wants to encourage this behaviour?

case and point ----THE US

at the bottom of the market, would 5-6 million people lost their jobs, in certain areas of the country,jobs started to come back, these manufacturing jobs were slightly higher in pay than what the government was handing out and people did NOT flock to these jobs WHY? why is because they only payed a little more than what the GOVERNMENT was giving as a handout, so why bother


SOCIALISM BLOWS DONKEY DICKS

Meritocracy and Socialism are not mutually exclusive ..... don't get confused

@Nigee ... Not in Europe. They are here.

@ssorenn ... yeah, when the only jobs you can get pay you less than the government. If jobs actually paid a livable wage, people didn't have to work two of them for 70 hours a week in order to keep on their feet, and a barely-above-poverty handout from the government didn't provide enough motivation to *not* work, we wouldn't have that problem...

who are you , mr high school student to argue what a livable wage is---you live at home eat your parents food probably drive their cars and attend private school. I am not arguing against the minimum wage, although i have my thoughts on the matter, i am saying that most govt subsides that promote this type of behavior, should go away, or people that take these HANDOUTS should be required to give back in so sort of way....we as a country can not afford to continue to bankrupt ourselves with these programs anymore....

Typical. Personal attacks. Makes me wonder whether my high school diploma is more than some of you on this site actually got.

is the truth bothering you, this was not an attack,, You are a moron, i am a quite successful person in all aspects of life....i pay more in taxes on an annual basis than you'll probably make in a year ever. when,IF, you ever go to the real world and do some of things on your own,you can have a say...till then shut up boy

Nigee - you are clearly being a racist, to dare suggest that people receiving government assistance are too lazy to work. We know that this is just liberal code-word language for various ethnicities, right? You should be ashamed….

ssoren - the boy is so out of touch with reality / so ensconced is liberal media hype and *lies* he actually believes all this crap. fuck, I'd be hard pressed to actually find a "minimum wage" job working at McDonald's or other Low-to-No skilled jobs around here.

But, you know, his Union teacher told him it was so, and he heard a Politician repeat the claim, therefore it must be gospel truth.

(God forbid Bo-ster actually do *real* research and find out who makes minimum wage, etc, and find's out what the historic effect on unemployment are during various policies...)

More to the point, and on a different/related topic, recent studies show that Under Obama, there is *more destruction* to businesses/entrepenurial spirit.....while at the same time food stamps and government assistance are skyrocketing....and Libtards can't see the connections.