The forgotten Human Right: the universal law of inheritance 1. Do we say Yes to political heritage but No to economic legacy?

4. For the formulation of this proposal in fact, the claim of a right I shall start from the citation of a text1 by Bertrand Russell in 1947 when, referring to the political views of English philosopher John Locke2, concluded the following observation: "Locke had no difficulty in destroying Filmers argument. "On the subject of the arguments of reason, Locke's work was, of course, easy. He says that if the axis of comparison is drawn by parents power, then the power of the mother must be equal to the fathers. It underscores the unfairness of primogeniture, unavoidable if the monarchy should be based on inheritance. It mocks the absurd assertion that the monarchs are, in real sense, the direct successors of Adam. Adam may have only one heir, but nobody knows who he is. Would Filmer maintain he wonders that, in case on being able to discover the true heir, all the existing monarchs should put their crowns at his feet? If we accept the foundation of the monarchy advocated by Filmer, all the kings, except one, were usurpers and held not the right to demand obedience from their de facto subjects. In addition, he says, the paternal power is temporary and does not extend itself to life or property. "For all these reasons, besides some other, more fundamental ones, Locke says that inheritance cannot be the grounds of legitimate political power. And in his Second Treatise on Government tries to find a more acceptable basis. "The principle of inheritance has now practically disappeared from politics. (...) Its odd that the rejection of the principle of inheritance has had almost no effect on the economic sphere in democratic countries. (...) We still consider natural that a man would leave his property to his children, that is, we accept the hereditary principle regarding economic power, but we refuse to accept it in terms of political power. The political dynasties disappeared, but economic dynasties remain. I'm not about to adduce arguments for or against this treatment of the two different forms of power, I just point out their existence and indicate that most people are unaware of them. Considering the ease with which we accept that power over the lives of others, spreading from big wealth, can be inherited, we will better understand why men like Sir Robert Filmer could have the same point of view about kings power; as well as we will comprehend the importance of the innovation represented by men that thought like Locke
1

.- B. Russell, Histria social de la filosofia, vol III, Edicions 62, Barcelona 1996. UNDERLINED BY THE AUTHOR*.
2

.- Considered one of the fathers of liberalism, Locke maintained that rulers have to pay respect to individual rights, inborn in a person: the human rights.

and shared their ideas. "To understand why could they follow Filmers theory and, conversely, why Locke's theory might seem revolutionary, we just have to bear in mind that a kingdom was then regarded, as it is now, as a territorial property. The owner of a land holds very important rights, the main one being the power to decide who will live in his land. Property can be transmitted, and to all of us seems that the man who has inherited property has a fair claim to all the privileges granted by law. Now, his position is exactly the same as the monarchs positions of whom Sir Robert Filmer refers and whose privileges upholds. In California, there are currently a number of large territorial properties the legal title of which is a concession -real or alleged- of the king of Spain. The monarch could only make such concessions: a) because Spain agreed on ideas similar to Filmers, b) because the Spaniards defeated military the Indians. However, we consider that the heirs of those to whom the concessions were made, hold a fair and legal deed title. Maybe, in the future, all of this would seem as fantastic as Filmers opinions appear to us now. " What a shame that Bertrand Russell did not insist on this line of argument, though the nature of his book, on philosophical reflection but basically informative, was not suitable to it. In fact, whats really sad is that neither has he found followers that would develop his argument since, despite the fact that this element, inheritance, never cease to be present in history, with total impunity in economic mechanisms, not just in a passive way: on the contrary, conditioning the economy and social life and being, however, a imperceptible element that goes unnoticed, as if it has no importance, and its agreed with the passivity parsimony with which we accept natural things, with the same naturalness with was accepted the alleged divine right during the Middle Ages... Governments follow one another, societies evolve (even by simple vegetative inertia), but everyone keeps considering "natural the hereditary principle regarding economic power," as Russell said. And so do the reality analysts, from right or left, conservative or progressive, when the truth is that, besides what they all declare, the historically undeniable fact that revolutionaries and reformers have failed once and again doesnt implies that the capitalist jungle is now the best alternative, and far from it the only one. Lets appeal to them now, straight away, political analysts and economists entrenched on one side or other side of the debate: What would they say about the possibility of a capitalist society as we have but without the element of medieval inheritance embedded in the base? Would they agree - the ones that call themselves conservative and/or liberal - on a liberal system in its function but with the hereditary basis socialized? And the forces of progress, would they accept a society of free competition but to which all the citizens, without exception, will have guaranteed access by law? Would they agree, ones and the others, on the right of everyone to property, and to a property with no limits, but with the (only) condition that the property would be for life, rather than being hereditary in nature as it is (yet) now? In any case, it is an unexplored opportunity, but a real and realistic one, and, that goes without saying, an alternative beyond the depressing analysis that so many commentators and hacks produce about our current reality, some from the most stupid and suicidal conformism and the other from the constant lament

and the systematic complaint (exhausting, useless), and all together turning around the same issues but falling to offer any breathable prospect. For now, while the future does not arrive (and nothing and no one does anything so we walk towards it), our present is stuck in the same medieval mental mechanism of Robert Filmer, and we are paying for the consequences of it, due to our condition of royal subjects (though formally and illusory democratic citizens) of new economic absolute monarchies. 2. Another election manifesto is possible Weve said that we are dealing with a real and realistic opportunity in that, unlike the lampedusian maxim of "lets change something in order to avoid no change at all", here the program will consist in changing something, a small piece of the big economic gear, in order to change everything, and to do so without trauma, in a relatively unnoticeable way, but with tangible results, radically positive: just the outcome of greasing the financial gears. To achieve these results we have two means, two ways: the social one, based on the sovereign faculty of all citizens to draw their will, and the politic one, namely the legal recognition of the universal right (to which all citizens are entitled) to inherit. Both are formally possible and legally indisputable, but the political way would be, needless to say, of a faster application. And thats why it could be an interesting educational resource to imagine this proposal as a manifesto, ten points, suitable to participate in a hypothetical election to any of the levels of the administration of the State. 10-point political program: 1. Reform of the inheritance law: Everyone, men and women, will have the right to inherit, indiscriminately, just because they were born as citizens of our country. 2. Everyone will have the right to own property and accumulate as many goods as possible and / or desired, but the length of the property does not exceed the life of the owner, after which that will become part of the common legacy, inherited by all citizens of the new generations when they reach adulthood. 3. Economic program: as a result of the second point, the Treasury will possess, under a trust fund, a certain amount of resources permanent and redistributable. The distribution will guarantee, on one hand, equal opportunities for all young people (and, consequently, the meritocracy) and, on another hand, the movement of capital, and therefore the permanent reactivation of trade and industry. Moreover, given the abundance of predictable and sufficient resources to distribute, in return the Government will be able to afford itself the luxury to put as a prerequisite sine qua non for opening any business that it has to meet strict protocols on environment preservation and will be free to close those that pollute. Thus, the State will not be permissive with any business or establishment who lacks of adequate access for people with reduced mobility. 4. As a consequence of the second point, citizens taxes will be gradually

replaced by a single tax: the inheritance (the heritable property, or personal property) of citizens who died. Lets put it another way: people will not pay any tax on life in their economic activity (whether employees or entrepreneurs), and will be able to devote the fruits of his labor capital to reinvest them in their own companies, businesses, studies, or whatever they want, without more limits than the ones imposed by themselves. (We do not agree with a tax system that punishes, as does the current system, the efforts of workers and entrepreneurs, of enterprising people. We see no reason why those who have more have to pay more: thats to be dealt by nature). Instead, everyone will have the moral certainty of contributing, when the activity ceases because of their own physical transfer (posthumously then), to the stability of society, and yet be with the certainty that their children will not be homeless, that they will be able to guarantee their future, if they use the means provided by the public resources. 5. The Municipality where people are registered would be held the deposit taker of their inheritances. This provision will favor the community closest to the deceased person as well as, indirectly, will favor the territorial rebalance (and, consequently, in the long run, the reduction of forced migration due to economic reasons). Another effect, not unimportant, is that foreigners or immigrants will be always welcome in any community, provided that they are not socially costly. 6. Social program: the pension system will not be based on the capital accumulated by the State (meaning the Municipality is part of it), but on the particular savings. (Therefore, the system of saving banks will be reactivated and always reliable). However, people with physical disabilities will have access to health services according to their disability, and nobody will be unattended (as it will also guarantee the performance of the network of public hospitals and other healthcare institutions). For the same reason all the disabled people will have access to the labor market (for it will necessarily be more flexible) in accordance with their personal physical and mental capacities. 7. Educational program: education will be compulsory and universal, and children would have to be aware of the need of reaching adulthood with a school record sufficient to make them worthy of public deposit in order to enter the job market or keep on with higher education, scientific research, etc. With this program, the humiliating scholarship system would not be needed. 8. Majority of age program: young people would have to be aware, in turn, of the opportunity provided by the society, when theyll meet the age of emancipation of the family (if they do want to emancipate), of the vital importance of the stage they have ahead, and of the usefulness of their efforts throughout life. The more they strive, the higher will be their personal achievement, but also their social productivity, which otherwise will be a way to thank (the richer, the more) the ancestors for their efforts now, thanks to which they themselves, young people, will have had the opportunity to start their own adult life and live it without more concerns than needed. Moreover, the children will have a preferential option to acquire those assets of the familiar patrimony they could be interested in preserving, for sentimental or whatever reasons.

9. State public treasury: it will be provided by surplus of the municipal level. The money will proceed "from the bottom to the top in whatever proportion needed for the State to maintain an optimal level of function of the big structures and infrastructures: trains, roads, ports, airports, public transportation, universities, sources of energy, electric grids, etc. This prevision will finally have to reconcile the social conception of the State, as provider of the essential social services, and the liberal conception of a State reduced to a minimum and allowing all of the same the maximum private initiative. 10. Foreign Affairs: insomuch relationships -social, political and diplomaticbetween peoples are determined by economic conditions, if people can develop themselves according their productive capacities (with universal heritage they will have no obstacles to it), each society will be self-sufficient, and therefore they will be no need for countries to conquer neighbor nations and live at their expense. Vampirism and parasitism - which are a source of discomfort and continuous social and political conflicts (included the linguistic one) will come to an end, and each national community that so wishes3 will be able to constitute a State, without objection (based on spurious grounds ) on the part of any other nation. On the contrary: with the immediate acceptance from other nations. The result of this will be the peace. 3. We want human rights, and we want them now! The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made a fine declaration of good will, and that historical gesture was of great importance (even if only as proof of the level of progress of human thought regarding the barbarism of past centuries .) But if they had included the universal right to inherit in the DD HH, we probably will be not forced to conclude now that efficiency did not come along with good intentions. The same with Governments, which may have theoretical capacity to rule but does not serve them if they dont have the economic capacity too. In fact, the man of the street, the citizen of our society is the victim of two situations: he is a subject of law, but the right always depends on the economic situation, which has run out of the control of the Governments long ago, and even more, needless to say, out of the spirit and letter of Human Rights. Thats because, in an era of telecommunications and new technologies, the economy drags a hindrance of feudal roots that makes us vassals of the new (or renewed, because they never disappeared) hereditary economic monarchies that we accept or tolerate in such a meek way probably because, on this matter, we all have feel uncomfortably implied, since hereditary mechanism stems from the base, from the family privacy, and we mistakenly "assumed it" in our mental mechanism. Lets just consider with which naturalness we use a language full of expressions that should be considered, like the sexist ones, "politically incorrect" if just we were aware of it. We refer easily to the "disinherited of the earth" , to "marginalized people", to "high and low classes," to "employees" of "less fortunate classes", to "people of good family" or "good family", to "rich" and
3

.- As it is Catalonias case, paradigm of the nations without a State, but perfectly qualified to possess one.

"poor" .. . The same concept of "social class" should put us on guard, and before turning it into the theoretical engine of history we should stop to think, perhaps, what does it mean, how stupid and humiliating is the reality that reflects. Beyond language, there is the harsh reality of the concepts, so we could still go the extreme and ask ourselves if the very existence of certain correction factors (politicians, trade union, solidarity, alternative people ...) is not actually a proof of conformism regarding some divisions (rich / poor, left / right ...), allegedly unavoidable, which may be "fought" (with the class struggle?!) but not deleted. If we are to name it bluntly, it shows the acceptance of a fatality. The proposal, therefore, is simply summarized: if the big imbalances that undermine our society (with all kinds of negative consequences on individuals, on families, the environment) have their origin in the right to inherit restricted to a minority, then justice, social balance and peace must necessarily lay in the socialization of this right, in its statement as a universal right. 4. By way of summary The predictions of social scientists on the nearly future spread invariably on the certainty of the assumption (pardon the oxymoron) noted before: that the current economic system is the only possible; after the convulsions of the twentieth century, which gave rise to two horrific world wars and a cold war which ended with the de facto victory of capitalism, it prevails the general conviction that the economic system has no alternative. But what if it was not (exactly) it? If capitalism (the one we know of, and of which extreme hardness we recognize) had an alternative, albeit from its inside, all the perspectives change. We can speculate on this possibility by including a variable thats not usually taken into account, beginning, for this play on imagination, with the concept of hereditary economic monarchies "referred to by Bertrand Russell just after II World War. Russell wonder how come the French Revolution abolished (violently) the hereditary monarchy, and with it the "political heritage (inheritance as a political value), while they never contradict the existence nor the role of "economic legacy" that subsisted, untouched, to this day. Needless to say, the right to inherit was not included in the Declaration of Human Rights drafted by the enlightened of eighteenth century, so that particular mechanism, rooted in feudal law, persisted until today, embedded in the joint machinery of the modern economy, and giving rise to serious distortions. In very schematic terms, we can see it through these three figures attached:

The first (Fig.1) shows, simplified to the most, how this mechanism works: based on the assumption of two men who work to earn their living, from an initial position of equality (ideal, abstract), at the end of his life, the one that had more (natural) capacities of the two (because there are no two men alike) would have gained an advantage over the other. From the initial 50% he will rise to a higher percentage, so, if we consider the global calculation of wealth in the world as a whole (represented by the circle), this worker must necessarily have accumulated assets to the detriment of another one, and if this imbalance moves to the next generation, ie, if the child of each of them inherits from his own father, then the son of worker A (A1) will have a lead (and all the means to multiply it) on the son of worker B (B1) and so on. In view of the evident injustice of this situation (still in 2011, since there is

nothing imaginary in it), Governments try to minimize the intervention of the State, through the collection of taxes; as it follows (Figure 2, left): citizens that work (C) pay taxes (I) to the State (E), which invests them in services, although keeping some reserve to pay the future pensions (P) to employees that had been quoting. If the inheritance had to become, from particular and private in nature to universal (rather than suppressed, as proposed by Marx), it will work as it follows (Figure 2, right): the working citizens (C), instead of paying taxes (in life), would leave the legacy (LU) of their assets to the State (E), which would held them in trusteeship to invest, on one part, in services and, the rest, in providing the universal inheritance (HU) to the young at emancipation age. Due to the fact that they will not pay taxes (in life), workers could ensure themselves smooth retirement through savings or private pension plans. Thats to say that the universal application of this right will have a permanent leveler effect (Figure 3) against inequalities, since these will not transcend beyond the biological existence of the people. And one more note, facing demographic movements so in vogue today in the political or the accident and crime reports: if the organization that has to take care the universal legacy (LU) is the closest administrative level to the citizens, in other words, the municipality, the migration movements would become an agent of the wealths redistribution, rather than being a source of conflict as it happens now. For a start, all this seems quite complicated, but if you give it some thought, it would help to believe in the possibility of a world that gives more opportunities to play a part and less anxiety to its inhabitants. From here, I think we can say that, under current economic and demographic indices and the enormous (and immoral) inequalities exhibited, there may be for the inhabitants of this planet a perspective, at least, of a better future. ___________________________________ Ferm Sidera Riera Salt (Girons), April 2011