Tax the Dead, They Need But One Obolus

I've recently rehashed my near 100% death tax idea with a friend here and he makes a valid point that people do work harder so their kids will start out better in life. Previously, I've maintained that people pretty much do whatever they want and apply the best sounding labels to it later on in order to justify their actions. So the businessman who's work takes precedence over his kids claims he "did it all for them" when he needs a comfortable excuse.

This is cynical and only partly right, since no single reason can explain a course of action. Reality is a tangled web of causal relationships that become more knotty, not less, as you delve deeper into them.

But, however that may be, we can say something about "doing it for the kids", which a sizable number are. Though it's a virtuous parenting instinct, it may prove harmful to society as a whole. This is entirely conjecture, but I'm a big believer in the "journey" being more valuable than the destination. In any event, the journey invariably affects the destination reached. I like to believe finishing something easy won't be as rewarding finishing something hard. Not to me anyway, and I think I can say not to most people. After all, a man who earns a million dollars by the sweat of his brow must have learned something along the way that the lucky lotto winner can never understand. (Except, of course, lottery winners are often hard-working folk who'll never draw in the big cash. Their ship's headed to East St. Louis, whereas Mr. Moneymaker's is headed to Tahiti.)

"I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain." --John Adams

So, you make the cash so your kids can splash in the pool of leisure. Or, at least follow their hearts desire and do something pleasant, rather than compromising. Does this successive improvement in life choices ever end? When does it breakdown and leave us with weak-willed spendthrifts whose sole notion of the "good" is pleasure? After all, if hedonism's not to lead to ruin, it must be accompanied by ample doses of willpower.

"On another occasion he was going into the house of a courtesan, and when one of the young men who were with him blushed, he said, 'It is not the going into such a house that is bad, but the not being able to go out.'" --Aristippus

(Okay, so Aristippus isn't the best source to support an argument that working for something makes the end better, but I love the quote and idea behind it. Decadence takes discipline!)

Is this the wrong place to insert an ubiquitous reference to Ancient Rome? (Rome! The idea of all that's good and orderly done in by an unbridled pursuit of pleasure and abdication of duty by those who benefited most from its splendors!)

If Adams is right, and his outline is fairly good, he neglected to add the final step: So their sons can be wastrels and profligates, since it's rare that anyone raised in ease will form the discipline necessary for their situation in life. (To be fair, that kind of discipline is rare altogether; being unable to indulge our wanton desires is simply a natural buttress to our weak wills.)

How many talented painters, musicians, poets, and such do you suppose we've lost because they slaved away in coal mines or wasted away in front of computer terminals? It might be plenty, but I suppose despite their inabililty to create a lasting monument to their talent, that talent created value and comfort to them and those around them during their lives. And if they never discovered their talent, then it wasn't very important. Because raw talent is worthless without drive, and since they gave up they must not have had much.