Some Ideas To Think About

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,287
47,641
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#1
I love Walter Williams. From TownHall.com:

Some Ideas To Think About
Walter E. Williams
Posted: Aug 01, 2018 12:01 AM

Poverty is no mystery, and it's easily avoidable. The poverty line that the Census Bureau used in 2016 for a single person was an income of $12,486 that year. For a two-person household, it was $16,072, and for a four-person household, it was $24,755. To beat those poverty thresholds is fairly simple. Here's the road map: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen.

How about some numbers? A single person taking a minimum wage job would earn an annual income of $15,080. A married couple would earn $30,160. By the way, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 4 percent of hourly workers in 2016 were paid the minimum wage. That means that over 96 percent of workers earned more than the minimum wage. Not surprising is the fact that among both black and white married couples, the poverty rate is in the single digits. Most poverty is in female-headed households.

Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign garnered considerable appeal from millennials. These young people see socialism as superior to free market capitalism. Capitalism doesn't do well in popularity polls, despite the fact that it has eliminated many of mankind's worst problems, such as pestilence and gross hunger and poverty. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the nonexistent, non-realizable utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system, when compared with a utopia, will not fare well. Indeed, socialism sounds good but, when practiced, leads to disaster. Those disasters have been experienced in countries such as the USSR, China, most African nations and, most recently, Venezuela. When these disasters are pointed out, the excuse is inadequacies of socialist leaders rather than socialism itself. For the ordinary person, free market capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

Here are a couple of questions: Does an act clearly immoral when done privately become moral when done collectively? Does legality or majority consensus establish morality? Before you answer, consider that slavery was legal; South African apartheid was legal; the horrendous Stalinist, Nazi and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality or a majority consensus cannot establish morality.

You might ask, "If you're so smart, Williams, what establishes morality?" That's easy, and you tell me when I make the wrong step. My initial premise is that we own ourselves. You are your private property, and I am mine. Self-ownership reveals what's moral and immoral. Rape is immoral because it violates private property. So is murder and any other initiation of violence. Most people probably agree with me that rape and murder are immoral, but what about theft? Some Americans would have a problem deciding whether theft is moral or immoral.

Let's first define what theft is. A fairly good working definition of theft is the taking by force of one person's property and the giving of it to another to whom it does not belong. Most Americans think that doing that is OK as long as it's done by government. We think that it is OK for Congress to take the earnings of one American to give to another American in the form of agricultural subsidies, business bailouts, aid for higher education, food stamps, welfare and other such activities that make up at least two-thirds of the federal budget. If I took some of your earnings to give to a poor person, I'd go to jail. If a congressman did the same thing, he'd be praised. (Rx: All taxation is theft. Molon labe.)

People tend to love a powerful government. Quite naturally, a big, powerful government tends to draw into it people with bloated egos, people who think they know more than everyone else and have little hesitance in coercing their fellow man. Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek explained why corruption is rife in government: "In government, the scum rises to the top."
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,027
16,364
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#3
I love Walter Williams. From TownHall.com:

Some Ideas To Think About
Walter E. Williams
Posted: Aug 01, 2018 12:01 AM

Poverty is no mystery, and it's easily avoidable. The poverty line that the Census Bureau used in 2016 for a single person was an income of $12,486 that year. For a two-person household, it was $16,072, and for a four-person household, it was $24,755. To beat those poverty thresholds is fairly simple. Here's the road map: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen.

How about some numbers? A single person taking a minimum wage job would earn an annual income of $15,080. A married couple would earn $30,160. By the way, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 4 percent of hourly workers in 2016 were paid the minimum wage. That means that over 96 percent of workers earned more than the minimum wage. Not surprising is the fact that among both black and white married couples, the poverty rate is in the single digits. Most poverty is in female-headed households.

Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign garnered considerable appeal from millennials. These young people see socialism as superior to free market capitalism. Capitalism doesn't do well in popularity polls, despite the fact that it has eliminated many of mankind's worst problems, such as pestilence and gross hunger and poverty. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the nonexistent, non-realizable utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system, when compared with a utopia, will not fare well. Indeed, socialism sounds good but, when practiced, leads to disaster. Those disasters have been experienced in countries such as the USSR, China, most African nations and, most recently, Venezuela. When these disasters are pointed out, the excuse is inadequacies of socialist leaders rather than socialism itself. For the ordinary person, free market capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

Here are a couple of questions: Does an act clearly immoral when done privately become moral when done collectively? Does legality or majority consensus establish morality? Before you answer, consider that slavery was legal; South African apartheid was legal; the horrendous Stalinist, Nazi and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality or a majority consensus cannot establish morality.

You might ask, "If you're so smart, Williams, what establishes morality?" That's easy, and you tell me when I make the wrong step. My initial premise is that we own ourselves. You are your private property, and I am mine. Self-ownership reveals what's moral and immoral. Rape is immoral because it violates private property. So is murder and any other initiation of violence. Most people probably agree with me that rape and murder are immoral, but what about theft? Some Americans would have a problem deciding whether theft is moral or immoral.

Let's first define what theft is. A fairly good working definition of theft is the taking by force of one person's property and the giving of it to another to whom it does not belong. Most Americans think that doing that is OK as long as it's done by government. We think that it is OK for Congress to take the earnings of one American to give to another American in the form of agricultural subsidies, business bailouts, aid for higher education, food stamps, welfare and other such activities that make up at least two-thirds of the federal budget. If I took some of your earnings to give to a poor person, I'd go to jail. If a congressman did the same thing, he'd be praised. (Rx: All taxation is theft. Molon labe.)

People tend to love a powerful government. Quite naturally, a big, powerful government tends to draw into it people with bloated egos, people who think they know more than everyone else and have little hesitance in coercing their fellow man. Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek explained why corruption is rife in government: "In government, the scum rises to the top."
One of my mentors would say something very similar - He would say that all problems have a solution and that solution is both easy and apparent but you have to answer 3 questions first all the questions then test your logic, reason and morality.
1. What is the real problem you are trying to solve
2. How far are you willing to go to solve it
3. With very minor exceptions can it be done uniformly

Then he would use the analogy of the crying baby and ask us to walk him through it - not pc, I know
1. What is the problem you are trying to solve
2. How far are you willing to go to solve it
3. With minor exceptions can it be done uniformly

You might be surprised at the answers you come up with
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,771
2,093
743
Where else but Stillwater
#4
The article starts, "Poverty is no mystery, and it's easily avoidable." But not one word in the article about people who are too lazy or irresponsible to keep themselves out of poverty. In other words, how to fix people who think they were born with the world owing them a living. When they're not sponging off of government welfare, they are sponging or conning off of other people.

As for people who insist taxation is theft, they need to think up of a voluntarily given to tax system in which people are free to buy as little or as much government services as their hearts desire. People who too poor to get anything from such a system would go to private charities for help, also voluntarily given to. Those policies should please people who are opposed to statism and collectivism.

If your body is your private property as the article said, then you might as well favor repeal of consensual crimes, such as prostitution. The government has too much power, especially when attempting to enforce such crimes.
 
Last edited:

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,471
6,451
1,743
Yukon, OK
#5
The article starts, "Poverty is no mystery, and it's easily avoidable." But not one word in the article about people who are too lazy or irresponsible to keep themselves out of poverty. In other words, how to fix people who think they were born with the world owing them a living. When they're not sponging off of government welfare, they are sponging or conning off of other people.
"To beat those poverty thresholds is fairly simple. Here's the road map: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen."
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,434
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#6
The article starts, "Poverty is no mystery, and it's easily avoidable." But not one word in the article about people who are too lazy or irresponsible to keep themselves out of poverty. In other words, how to fix people who think they were born with the world owing them a living. When they're not sponging off of government welfare, they are sponging or conning off of other people.

As for people who insist taxation is theft, they need to think up of a voluntarily given to tax system in which people are free to buy as little or as much government services as their hearts desire. People who too poor to get anything from such a system would go to private charities for help, also voluntarily given to. Those policies should please people who are opposed to statism and collectivism.

If your body is your private property as the article said, then you might as well favor repeal of consensual crimes, such as prostitution. The government has too much power, especially when attempting to enforce such crimes.
who the heck are you, and how did you get Townie's login credentials?
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,027
16,364
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#8
The article starts, "Poverty is no mystery, and it's easily avoidable." But not one word in the article about people who are too lazy or irresponsible to keep themselves out of poverty. In other words, how to fix people who think they were born with the world owing them a living. When they're not sponging off of government welfare, they are sponging or conning off of other people.

As for people who insist taxation is theft, they need to think up of a voluntarily given to tax system.
Poverty, like the term, human rights, is arbitrary and has no meaning other than what people want it to mean and that changes by person.
On your 2nd point - 90% of total wealth death tax & 70% tax on foreign transfers by US citizens as well as 50% on transfers by non citizens, if these were implemented correctly it would eliminate the need for income taxes and withholdings and it would eliminate the moneyed ‘clans’ that control everything from our politics to our wars. It would mean the end of the Koch’s, Soros, Kennedy, Bush etc...
If you think it’s extreme then I would suggest reading up on Jefferson’s idea of redistribution of all wealth every 50 years. You see while the Constitution bans the idea of royalty Jefferson understood that a title didn’t create the problem, power did and power came from money. It also doesn’t violate NAP because once I’m dead my property rights are no longer valid.
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,434
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#9
Poverty, like the term, human rights, is arbitrary and has no meaning other than what people want it to mean and that changes by person.
On your 2nd point - 90% of total wealth death tax & 70% tax on foreign transfers by US citizens as well as 50% on transfers by non citizens, if these were implemented correctly it would eliminate the need for income taxes and withholdings and it would eliminate the moneyed ‘clans’ that control everything from our politics to our wars. It would mean the end of the Koch’s, Soros, Kennedy, Bush etc...
If you think it’s extreme then I would suggest reading up on Jefferson’s idea of redistribution of all wealth every 50 years. You see while the Constitution bans the idea of royalty Jefferson understood that a title didn’t create the problem, power did and power came from money. It also doesn’t violate NAP because once I’m dead my property rights are no longer valid.
wow... let me try and flag down the turnip truck for you....
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,771
2,093
743
Where else but Stillwater
#11
"To beat those poverty thresholds is fairly simple. Here's the road map: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen."
LOL, neither do you have a solution concerning what to do about people who won't complete high school or get a job and who have kids before marrying. Or is there no solution needed? Just keep the welfare state going?
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,771
2,093
743
Where else but Stillwater
#12
Poverty, like the term, human rights, is arbitrary and has no meaning other than what people want it to mean and that changes by person.
On your 2nd point - 90% of total wealth death tax & 70% tax on foreign transfers by US citizens as well as 50% on transfers by non citizens, if these were implemented correctly it would eliminate the need for income taxes and withholdings and it would eliminate the moneyed ‘clans’ that control everything from our politics to our wars. It would mean the end of the Koch’s, Soros, Kennedy, Bush etc...
If you think it’s extreme then I would suggest reading up on Jefferson’s idea of redistribution of all wealth every 50 years. You see while the Constitution bans the idea of royalty Jefferson understood that a title didn’t create the problem, power did and power came from money. It also doesn’t violate NAP because once I’m dead my property rights are no longer valid.
Sorry, but much of your response is vague or unclear.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,471
6,451
1,743
Yukon, OK
#13
LOL, neither do you have a solution concerning what to do about people who won't complete high school or get a job and who have kids before marrying. Or is there no solution needed? Just keep the welfare state going?
You asked:
The article starts, "Poverty is no mystery, and it's easily avoidable." But not one word in the article about people who are too lazy or irresponsible to keep themselves out of poverty. In other words, how to fix people who think they were born with the world owing them a living. When they're not sponging off of government welfare, they are sponging or conning off of other people.
If they're too lazy or irresponsible to follow the "road map" then that's they're own damned fault. If someone has fallen on hard times or just made a mistake that's one thing but if they're living out the mindset of "you do you" then "you" can pay for "you". Sorry, not sorry.
 
Jul 20, 2018
529
80
28
58
77539
#14
LOL, neither do you have a solution concerning what to do about people who won't complete high school or get a job and who have kids before marrying. Or is there no solution needed? Just keep the welfare state going?
It's simple. Stop rewarding people for stupid decisions. Stop providing welfare at 2 children. Make people work to obtain welfare if they are physically capable. Deny women who have children out of wedlock before age 21. People have been playing the system for multiple generations. It's time to stop it.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,287
47,641
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#15
My divorce left me financially devastated, the financial MOAB was dropped on me. I worked 2-3 jobs and dug myself out of the hole. I realize that not everyone has the same earning capacity that I do, but then again not everyone gets hit with the same bomb.

At the time she moved out I was working for SWOSU and only got paid once a month. That first month was sheer hell, it was the 5th day of the month, I had about -$50 in my checking account, and about $30 in my pocket. I didn't know how I was going to pay for gas to get back and forth to work the rest of the month, much less eat, or pay the rest of the bills which I was stuck with. I laid on the floor of the bedroom with no bed or other furniture, because she had taken it, feeling like everything was collapsing on me and thinking that maybe the world was really better off without me. You hear about "deadbeat dads" but the system creates them, and as WW says most of those living in poverty are single moms. I never missed or was ever late with a payment to her, nor did my kids ever go without. I worked my fanny off to see to it.

WW is dead right about staying married.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,397
8,173
1,743
#16
My divorce left me financially devastated, the financial MOAB was dropped on me. I worked 2-3 jobs and dug myself out of the hole. I realize that not everyone has the same earning capacity that I do, but then again not everyone gets hit with the same bomb.

At the time she moved out I was working for SWOSU and only got paid once a month. That first month was sheer hell, it was the 5th day of the month, I had about -$50 in my checking account, and about $30 in my pocket. I didn't know how I was going to pay for gas to get back and forth to work the rest of the month, much less eat, or pay the rest of the bills which I was stuck with. I laid on the floor of the bedroom with no bed or other furniture, because she had taken it, feeling like everything was collapsing on me and thinking that maybe the world was really better off without me. You hear about "deadbeat dads" but the system creates them, and as WW says most of those living in poverty are single moms. I never missed or was ever late with a payment to her, nor did my kids ever go without. I worked my fanny off to see to it.

WW is dead right about staying married.
Been there. Done that. Got the sh*ta$$ t-shirt.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,027
16,364
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#18
Sorry, but much of your response is vague or unclear.
You said something about people who don't want out of poverty, I pointed out that poverty, like human rights, is entirely subjective, is there a calculation, yes but the figures change every time they recalculate and frankly they are wrong to begin with because poverty is dependent on a number of factors not just your income. Hopefully that clears that up

You then asked for a voluntary tax suggestion and I provided one that is entirely workable, solves the budget and debt issues, in fact our treasury would be teeming with funds, funding that could be used to actually help the truly disadvantaged, all while tearing down the oligarchies that rule our nation. Is there fallout that some would find distasteful, I'm sure there is, but when I am asked the question; what problem would I solve the answer for me it is the loss of liberty and that is tied directly to the oligarchical framework of this country (tbf, other countries as well). How far am I willing to go to solve it; pretty far, liquidate all trusts and tax them immediately at 90% other than that which the living members have contributed, provide a lifetime allowance of gifting ($5m for a couple aae) after that gifts are taxed at the same rate as death (90%), this is voluntary because you don't have to make gifts, don't allow a free flow of funds out of the country - 70% on all foreign transfers for US citizens (this is voluntary because you don't have to transfer funds) - don't allow others to piggyback the largesse of the US - 50% on all transfers made by non citizens (again transfers are voluntary), when a husband dies, his wife (significant other, regardless of man or woman) receives all assets tax free but when that person dies the remainder (sans the $5M gifting allowance) is taxed at 90% (all assets are either liquidate within 180 days or ownership is transferred to the gvt for liquidation and distribution) and the other 10% is distributed according to the wishes of the person.
Now you have the funds to allow you to eliminate the need for income taxes, withholdings, and corporate taxes, you have done it voluntarily in that you haven't taken property from someone via force / coercion (@RxCowboy is right, taxation is theft, one of the main ideas behind classical liberalism or Libertarianism) and you haven't made a positive aggression against an individual because property rights die with the owner of the property, so you haven't violated NAP (non- aggression principle, the main platform of classical liberalism or Libertarianism)
Finally with minor exceptions could it be done uniformly, without question - one exception, aae - you have a disabled child both mother and father die, if the parents were of the means then the funds they leave behind are set aside to care for that child until such a time as those funds are no longer necessary.
Remember this means that the 25-40% of your income the fed gvt takes every paycheck is no longer taken so the lifetime benefit for the vast majority of Americans would outweigh any loss of inheritance at death.

But what about the family farm, could it be a casualty, maybe, maybe not, If a living parent wants to sell acreage to a family member that's great sell it to them at or just below market price if they cannot afford it and you still need to sell it, find a willful buyer, those are both voluntary efforts.

The Constitution was established in part to ensure we didn't have an oligarchical structure (hence the prohibition of titles) and yet that is exactly what we have just without the titles but you could just as well call them the Duke and Duchess of Rothschild or the Earl of Stanley and it would be entirely accurate, this would undo that.

Hopefully that cleared that part up as well

And as I said this proposal pales to that of Jefferson's whereby all US wealth would have been redistributed every 50 years, obviously he never put it in place but that was because, I believe it was Alexander, who talked him out of it based on the backlash it would cause.

We were never meant to be ruled by families of inheritors, that's why we fought the Revolution to begin with.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,711
31,035
1,743
oklahoma city
#19
You said something about people who don't want out of poverty, I pointed out that poverty, like human rights, is entirely subjective, is there a calculation, yes but the figures change every time they recalculate and frankly they are wrong to begin with because poverty is dependent on a number of factors not just your income. Hopefully that clears that up

You then asked for a voluntary tax suggestion and I provided one that is entirely workable, solves the budget and debt issues, in fact our treasury would be teeming with funds, funding that could be used to actually help the truly disadvantaged, all while tearing down the oligarchies that rule our nation. Is there fallout that some would find distasteful, I'm sure there is, but when I am asked the question; what problem would I solve the answer for me it is the loss of liberty and that is tied directly to the oligarchical framework of this country (tbf, other countries as well). How far am I willing to go to solve it; pretty far, liquidate all trusts and tax them immediately at 90% other than that which the living members have contributed, provide a lifetime allowance of gifting ($5m for a couple aae) after that gifts are taxed at the same rate as death (90%), this is voluntary because you don't have to make gifts, don't allow a free flow of funds out of the country - 70% on all foreign transfers for US citizens (this is voluntary because you don't have to transfer funds) - don't allow others to piggyback the largesse of the US - 50% on all transfers made by non citizens (again transfers are voluntary), when a husband dies, his wife (significant other, regardless of man or woman) receives all assets tax free but when that person dies the remainder (sans the $5M gifting allowance) is taxed at 90% (all assets are either liquidate within 180 days or ownership is transferred to the gvt for liquidation and distribution) and the other 10% is distributed according to the wishes of the person.
Now you have the funds to allow you to eliminate the need for income taxes, withholdings, and corporate taxes, you have done it voluntarily in that you haven't taken property from someone via force / coercion (@RxCowboy is right, taxation is theft, one of the main ideas behind classical liberalism or Libertarianism) and you haven't made a positive aggression against an individual because property rights die with the owner of the property, so you haven't violated NAP (non- aggression principle, the main platform of classical liberalism or Libertarianism)
Finally with minor exceptions could it be done uniformly, without question - one exception, aae - you have a disabled child both mother and father die, if the parents were of the means then the funds they leave behind are set aside to care for that child until such a time as those funds are no longer necessary.
Remember this means that the 25-40% of your income the fed gvt takes every paycheck is no longer taken so the lifetime benefit for the vast majority of Americans would outweigh any loss of inheritance at death.

But what about the family farm, could it be a casualty, maybe, maybe not, If a living parent wants to sell acreage to a family member that's great sell it to them at or just below market price if they cannot afford it and you still need to sell it, find a willful buyer, those are both voluntary efforts.

The Constitution was established in part to ensure we didn't have an oligarchical structure (hence the prohibition of titles) and yet that is exactly what we have just without the titles but you could just as well call them the Duke and Duchess of Rothschild or the Earl of Stanley and it would be entirely accurate, this would undo that.

Hopefully that cleared that part up as well

And as I said this proposal pales to that of Jefferson's whereby all US wealth would have been redistributed every 50 years, obviously he never put it in place but that was because, I believe it was Alexander, who talked him out of it based on the backlash it would cause.

We were never meant
This is quite interesting. The powers won't let it happen as it ruins their dynasties, but is still interesting. This would also do far more to diminish "institutional racism" than any program or reparation nonsense. Are these your ideas, from elsewhere, or a synthesis?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,434
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#20
You said something about people who don't want out of poverty, I pointed out that poverty, like human rights, is entirely subjective, is there a calculation, yes but the figures change every time they recalculate and frankly they are wrong to begin with because poverty is dependent on a number of factors not just your income. Hopefully that clears that up

You then asked for a voluntary tax suggestion and I provided one that is entirely workable, solves the budget and debt issues, in fact our treasury would be teeming with funds, funding that could be used to actually help the truly disadvantaged, all while tearing down the oligarchies that rule our nation. Is there fallout that some would find distasteful, I'm sure there is, but when I am asked the question; what problem would I solve the answer for me it is the loss of liberty and that is tied directly to the oligarchical framework of this country (tbf, other countries as well). How far am I willing to go to solve it; pretty far, liquidate all trusts and tax them immediately at 90% other than that which the living members have contributed, provide a lifetime allowance of gifting ($5m for a couple aae) after that gifts are taxed at the same rate as death (90%), this is voluntary because you don't have to make gifts, don't allow a free flow of funds out of the country - 70% on all foreign transfers for US citizens (this is voluntary because you don't have to transfer funds) - don't allow others to piggyback the largesse of the US - 50% on all transfers made by non citizens (again transfers are voluntary), when a husband dies, his wife (significant other, regardless of man or woman) receives all assets tax free but when that person dies the remainder (sans the $5M gifting allowance) is taxed at 90% (all assets are either liquidate within 180 days or ownership is transferred to the gvt for liquidation and distribution) and the other 10% is distributed according to the wishes of the person.
Now you have the funds to allow you to eliminate the need for income taxes, withholdings, and corporate taxes, you have done it voluntarily in that you haven't taken property from someone via force / coercion (@RxCowboy is right, taxation is theft, one of the main ideas behind classical liberalism or Libertarianism) and you haven't made a positive aggression against an individual because property rights die with the owner of the property, so you haven't violated NAP (non- aggression principle, the main platform of classical liberalism or Libertarianism)
Finally with minor exceptions could it be done uniformly, without question - one exception, aae - you have a disabled child both mother and father die, if the parents were of the means then the funds they leave behind are set aside to care for that child until such a time as those funds are no longer necessary.
Remember this means that the 25-40% of your income the fed gvt takes every paycheck is no longer taken so the lifetime benefit for the vast majority of Americans would outweigh any loss of inheritance at death.

But what about the family farm, could it be a casualty, maybe, maybe not, If a living parent wants to sell acreage to a family member that's great sell it to them at or just below market price if they cannot afford it and you still need to sell it, find a willful buyer, those are both voluntary efforts.

The Constitution was established in part to ensure we didn't have an oligarchical structure (hence the prohibition of titles) and yet that is exactly what we have just without the titles but you could just as well call them the Duke and Duchess of Rothschild or the Earl of Stanley and it would be entirely accurate, this would undo that.

Hopefully that cleared that part up as well

And as I said this proposal pales to that of Jefferson's whereby all US wealth would have been redistributed every 50 years, obviously he never put it in place but that was because, I believe it was Alexander, who talked him out of it based on the backlash it would cause.

We were never meant to be ruled by families of inheritors, that's why we fought the Revolution to begin with.
The Constitution WAS NOT established to ensure that we did not have an oligarchical structure... that is pure nonsense.

The Constitution was established to provide PROPERTY RIGHTS and individual freedom FROM a government that would take everything that we worked our whole lives for. The Constitution was established the LIMIT the federal government to PREVENT what you are proposing, it had nothing to do with Oligarchs.

We're supposed to rule ourselves at the STATE level, with limited power of the Federal government.

How about we just abandon all those give away programs, ban socialism principles and get back to self government.

That would ALSO eliminate the influence of money at the Federal level.

my goodness