Governmet Ownership and Inheritance

I was posed a very interesting question by my dad on the subject of political philosophy: what if there was a system of government where when a person died, their belongings, wealth, property, and all other possessions were claimed by the government so that it could be redistributed between the people. In other words, what if there was no inheritance?

One of the major motivational factors for accumulating wealth is so one can pass it on to the next generation. By taking away that motivational factor, it will take away the the will to get better jobs and better positions and will ultimately lead to the stagnation of economy.

The biggest question that this system brings up is: who owns the properties and the possessions of the people? The idea of ownership is just an illusion in this system. A person is allowed to rent property from the government, the lease of which expires upon the death of an individual. Even the loophole where a person, upon finding out that he or she has cancer, or is extremely old, and decides to give away their possessions to their next of kin, is eliminated; which further solidifies the fact that the government owns the property.

This idea of government ownership of all property is eerily similar to the tried and failed idea of public ownership; the only difference being that in the system of government ownership, people have the choice to earn and spend money as freely as they want. In our modern world, even the slightest restrictions of fundamental rights like inheritance would lead to a kind of economic claustrophobia.

Not allowing inheritance would lead to the hiding of family heirlooms, money, etc. History proves that in every system where a law or rule is thought of as unfair, people break them. Take the prohibition of alcohol for instance: when alcohol became prohibited in the US, the lucrative business of illegally selling alcohol became popular. Along with the black market came crime, immense amounts of money being spent to enforce it, and an overall failure of the amendment, which ultimately led to its repeal. It can only be assumed, that is enough people are unhappy with the elimination of inheritance, a similar state of chaos would ensue.

In such a system, not everyone would have a fair share of the combined wealth of the deceased. There would have to be an agency in charge of the appropriation of wealth, and it is assumed that it would have to be quite large. Every agent employed by such an agency would have the power to uneven the odds. Every agent would be able to misappropriate the wealth and tip the favors to their friends and family. Even is the government could allocate wealth, it is assumed that with so many variables ie each agent, paperwork, accidents, etc. , it would not be done fairly. After all, in every society, no matter how equal its members claim to be, some people are more equal than others. Also, the system would fail because the manpower required to regulate wealth would be so immense, it would be ridiculous to assume that it would be done so fairly.

A Tribute To Jim Corbett

We've all heard stories. Stories of beasts and bullets, of war and danger. Such stories are often stretched beyond reality and after every retelling; one can swear that there were twice as many Germans, or that there were two leopards at no more than 50 feet away instead of one at 200 yards. But how many men can honestly boast that he had saved entire villages from ferocious man-eating beasts? How many men can claim that he had saved hundreds of lives by killing 19 tigers and 14 leopards?
Jim Corbett was born on July 25, 1875 as the eighth child of Christopher and Mary Jane Corbett. From a very young age, young Jim held an affinity towards the forest and all of its inhabitants. His frequent treks into the forest soon gave him the ability to identify most birds and beasts simply by their calls. Though he had the skills of a hunter, he began work as a fuel inspector at Manakpur and later a shipping contractor in Bihar.

Corbett was no more than an enthusiast in his early life; he focused solely on small game and fishing. But soon, as the death toll grew due to frequent attacks by man-eaters, he turned his focus to tigers and leopards. However, because of his deep admiration of such predators, he promised to only shoot tigers and leopards that turned on man or cattle. He killed his first man-eating tiger at the age of 32. The Champawat Tiger in Champawat was documented to have killed 436 men and women. Over 31 years starting in 1907, he killed 32 other man eaters that had in total, killed over 1500 men and women.

His books, all personal narratives of his spine chilling hunts, recount near impossible treks through dangerous forests, thrilling stories of killing tigers that were only a few feet away from him in pitch black, and other such tales. His other notable successes were the Panar Leopard, which killed over 400, the Chowgarh tigress, and the Thak man-eater.
Corbett was in every sense of the term, a hero. He risked his life countless times to preserve the lives of hundreds of others. He did not kill for pleasure (in fact in his first book, "The Man-Eaters of Kumaon", he tells of an incidence where he had accidentally shot the wrong tiger, and how he deeply regretted it). Instead, he killed tigers and leopards to protect humans.
Throughout his later life he fought to create a nature preserve in India that would protect all of the native inhabitants, bird and beast, from poachers and entrepreneurs. He moved to Kenya in the later years of life, and he died there from a heart attack at the age of 79. After his death the preserve was named after him. Even so many years after his death, he is still remembered fondly for his courage, honor, and respect for life.

Death

There are two types of fear: learned fear, like how one looks both ways before crossing the street, and instinctual fear, the primal hook and line, tethering us to life, the fear that tells us that we are going to die. I am not afraid of ghosts and spirits, or such entities. I acknowledge their existence, but I remind myself that I have never wronged them. I am not afraid of wild animals, not because I fancy myself a Samson, armed with the Herculean ability to tear wild beasts apart with my bare hands, but rather because of the lack of leopards roaming the sidewalks and lions prowling around in the cafeteria. The fanciful notions of zombies and the undead do not perturb me, solely because I refuse to accept their existence outside of comic books and bad 80’s horror flics. The one thing I am truly afraid of is Death. Death is the final frontier. Just the lack of explanations upon the subject disturbs and upsets me to no ends.

Has anyone noticed the similarities between Amitabh Bachan and Sean Connery? They both played the roles of young suave men, in countless fight sequences; they retired for some time, and then resumed their career playing roles as older men. They both retained their characteristic as always being the lead role, and neither of them lost their luster and suave appearences...

Classical Music

Sit back, relax, take out a book, and turn on some classical music. What if suddenly you were blown back, your ears blown apart by incredibly loud, obnoxiously unrhythmic screaming of some Canadian screamo band? Believe it or not, that was classical music that you were just listening to.

What is classical music? Wikipedia defines it as "a broad term that usually refers to mainstream music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 9th century to present times." Let's pick that apart. Classical music must have Western roots. Classical music must be from the 9th century onwards. But wait a minute; don't the China and India both have music that is accepted as classical music? China, already have a well established musical culture as early as the Zhou Dynasty (1122 BC – 256 BC)? Unless I'm mistaken, Chinese music is certainly not Western; and this music is over 2000 years older than Western music from the 9th century. India too, had classical music as early as one Millenia BCE. The oldest set of rules regarding Indian Classical music can be found in Narada's Sangita Makarandha treatise from 1100 BC. So both of these examples are accepted as "Classical Music" and both are before the 9th Century, and not in Europe. We can agree that this example can be trashed.

After much searching, I found a definition that fits my point of view: Classical music is a "traditional genre of music conforming to an established form and appealing to critical interest and developed musical taste". This definition seems to apply to all that we consider classical music and more! Not only are Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Seitz included but also modern composers like John Williams, country/western singers, and classical Native American dances! But by the definition, it is not the composer or the singer that makes the music classical, but the aggregate of the musical community, popular interest, and all together, anyone who listens to it. Therefore, bathroom singing, humming, and drunken wailing are disqualified. However, Native American dances are traditional, they conform to an established form, and are developed. Country Western music is arguably traditional, it has remained somewhat unchanged, and appeal to critical interest, so therefor it is also classical music. Ancient Indian and Chinese music also falls under this definition of classical music.

So when you turned on that classical music, perhaps you were listening to classical music. After all, screamo music is somewhat traditional, evolving from the hardcore punk genre, and has been around for almost 20 years. It does conform to set standards, never falling under a certain volume, and though not as developed as most accepted classical music, is developed nonetheless. After all, just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, "classical music" may be classical to some and a jumble of incoherent screaming to others. What's your take on this?

ASCGEN

I was searching the web and found some software named ASCgen. It turns pictures into beautifully colored text. Try it out...

The Future...

Skyscrapers, spaceships, hovercrafts, and teleporters; these words all describe the popular and rather clichéd depiction of “the future”. In science fiction movies and comics alike, the future of the human race is one of chrome and computers, complete with flying cars and rocket-ships. The people are strong and handsome as are the robots that serve them. Let us carry out a thought experiment to formulate alternate “futures”…

Today, more and more jobs are opening, that require less and less direct communication. Before the Information Age, Tom and Dick woke up at six, and either drove or rode the bus to work, which required them to sit in a cubicle and begin working at seven thirty. At twelve, a one-hour lunch break was given, and at four Tom and Dick drove back home and arrived at home by five. Today, more and more jobs are offering work-from-home environments. At seven Tom and Dick wake up, brush their teeth, and watch some news with breakfast. At seven thirty, they open their laptops and work in peace and quiet until twelve. They heat up some lunch and work while they eat. Since they are already at home, they may choose to work much later. Tom and Dick are content with staying at home. There are fewer distractions at home. There is no time wasted in getting to and from work. Less time is wasted going out for lunch. The company is happy with its productive workers. Perhaps in the “future”, there will be no need to exit one’s house. Tom and Dick may work from seven to four, then decide to “visit” the Grand Canyon in a virtual TV of the future, complete with taste and smell. After returning from Paris, they may choose to drop in on their neighbors, via the phone of the future of course. This theory, of course, trashes the concept of a future of rocket-ships and hover cars. Instead of commuting physically, we may commute virtually.

The future, according to TV and comic books, will have beautiful people: tall and muscular people that are physically fit. But perhaps, with the absence of having to physically leave one’s home to go to work and having to do very little physical activities, our limbs will become vestigial, like our ancient appendices and ear muscles. With high-tech computers that can be controlled by thought, we could design technology that our robots could manufacture. We could get by without worrying about having to get up. One could argue that Evolution has made us taller and stronger, so it is logical that It will continue to do the same. Charles Darwin’s survival of the fittest isn’t limited physically: our ancestors grew taller and stronger, because the tallest and strongest had the greatest chance of survival; in the modern age, strength has little impact on our day-to-day lives. Intelligence is what matters. The smartest get the best jobs and get the most money. The dumbest have a harder shot at survival. Possibly, our descendants will be incredibly intelligent. Perhaps they will be taught calculus in kindergarten and quantum physics by the third grade. Perhaps we will look like a large head with a shrunken body and stub arms and legs.

Buck Rogers and Star Wars both predict the future to be one of tall skyscrapers and never-ending cities. It seems logical that we may have to expand upwards after our cities have fully expanded outwards. As thousands of European immigrants poured into American cities at the turn of the twentieth century, cities began to expand outwards, growing into suburbs to accommodate the immigrants. Soon, as more and more offices began sprouting up, the demand for skyscrapers increased. Still, one could easily tell when one city ended and another began, usually aided by miles and miles of farmland and grasslands in between the cities. As cities are expanding more and more, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so; cities are growing into each other. Though skyscrapers are growing taller, and cites expanding wider, there will come a time when it will be more cost effective to expand beyond the horizons, literally. Why cling to earth when it is human nature to explore? Already, NASA and other adventurous organizations are planning programs like the NASA lunar outpost that ultimately aim to colonize everything from the moon to large asteroids. As resources are already dwindling today, can Earth really support a planet of say, 20 billion? Mining operations on the moon, mars, and various moons could sustain the human race as a whole. Solar energy harvesting factories could be set up Mercury, and Mars could be used for housing. Sooner or later, we could expand out into other solar systems. Instead of there being one over-burdened, over-populated city-planet, it is more logical to colonize multiple planets.

So to anyone that may be reading, please respond…