>>6935620I disagree, but I suppose there isn't much more I can do to convince you, since it's subjective. I believe that those in need deserve help, and those whom are already able to help themselves should give to those in need. You're absolutely right about doing what someone wants with their money, with the exception of the transfer of large sums of money to another person. This allows some to accumulate more than they've earned or otherwise need, and that's not right, not when there are others who could use it more.
>>6935628>In what way is it better to serve the 'the of mankind'?I dearly hope you don't mean to imply that it is better to serve oneself or one's own posterity over the entire world, at least financially. And can you explain what you mean by 'temporal limits'?
I'd say that the people are always entitled to the end of what they require to at least survive, no matter what time they happen to be born at. They'll receive no more than those after them even if this money comes into governmental ownership at whatever time they are alive.
I'm not arguing for even dispersal to the entire populace, if that wasn't clear. The free market will in some form still exist, only accumulated wealth will at the time of one's death will be returned to the state for distribution for those who need it of and when they do, not every person. I don't see how diminishing returns factors into it.
