Will somebody tell me that if a person inherits the looks, brain and all the qualities of their parents (in short everything) then why shoouldnt he inherit the fruits of their labour. That is, I am trying to say that it is completely moral for a child to bear the brunt of poverty if he was born in it and a rich person to get opportunies(after all his parents have worked hard for it). A child inherits all the qualities from their parents so why not fruit of labour?

I like it. That is the one point damn dirty reds always bring up in our arguments, and there is a solution. I like it.

A child does not inherit all their qualities from their parents. Experience of life is the major contributor to the creation of the self. If the self were purely genetic, then it would be unchanging. I know that I do not have the same beliefs that I did when I was a child and I also doubt that you have. People are impressionable and easily conditioned; we act in the manor that we have learnt to act in. Because we are so easily moulded we take on the personality that is projected on to us by our experiences. It is unfair to give children different starting points because it ultimately condemns those who start at the bottom to poverty.
As with the argument put forward by ‘No Communism’ your genetics argument can only lead to the conclusion that some people are genetically better than others and since whites have in proportional wealth (gained through innovation or genetic superiority) it is only natural to assume that those who are not white must be inferior in some way. Is this really what you are claiming?

Actually, a majority of America's poor are white. If you're talking about the entire world, Africa is the poorest country and the majority of Africans are black, so that would explain why there are a lot of poor blacks (world wide), not because of their colour but their country of birth.

So if you are suggesting that the poor are poor, for the majority, because they are less intelligent, take less risks, have less innovation, then are suggesting that Africans (based on nationality) are less intelligent than Europeans, Americans and Asians. I’ve never heard of a household name brand that operates out of Africa and is run by African nationals of any race. Is it not possible that there are no African heads of industry (or at most, a disproportionate amount) because Africans have not the same opportunities made available to them, as they are else where? And if so, then why is it that this global trend can not be attributed to the existence of poverty within borders.

'Will somebody tell me that if a person inherits the looks, brain and all the qualities of their parents (in short everything) then why shoouldnt he inherit the fruits of their labour. That is, I am trying to say that it is completely moral for a child to bear the brunt of poverty if he was born in it and a rich person to get opportunies(after all his parents have worked hard for it). A child inherits all the qualities from their parents so why not fruit of labour?'


Qualities like appearance and brain are not the same as the ammount of wealth someone has. If someone is disadvantaged because of their genetics there is nothing that can be done about that, but things can be done about poverty. I believe your argument is equivalent to saying, 'If a person can be struck done by cancer or heart disease, then surely I should be able to murder them.' Just because nature can inflict something on someone doesn't mean society has the right to.