at stands on weak social foundations. It is a survival from more
patriarchal conditions when, in the large family, or clan, the bond
of unity was very strong. A truer test to-day of the proper limits for
intestate inheritance is whether the wish to provide for these heirs
has furnished the motive for the producing and preserving of the
wealth. The claims of those nearest in blood and closest in personal
relations are strongest. Family affection and friendship form the
strongest of social ties, and it is socially expedient to cultivate
them. Motives for abstinence and industry must be strengthened. But
the same test shows that the zealous regard of the American law for
the rights of distant kinsmen in foreign lands, or in distant quarters
of this country, is irrational, and is unjust to the community where
the fortune was made. Public opinion tends strongly toward this idea.

Property rights as they exist are clearly seen not to be a product of
pure reason. They are the result of social evolution, of historical
accidents, of class legislation, and in many cases, of selfish
interests. Changing social conditions and ideas are bringing many
changes in law, and further changes must be expected to come, which
will reduce the influence of inheritance of property in fostering
status in distribution. Especially important are the increasing
application of the progressive principle to incomes and
inheritance,[5] and the development of insurance to put family savings
into the form of terminable annuities instead of capital sums.[6]

Sec. 7. #Some merits of competition#. The dominant method of distribution
to-day is that of competition.[7] This is not a mere accident, but
is a resultant of unending experimentation with different methods of
distribution carried on since the beginning of human society. A method
of distribution had to be found and retained that would work under
the conditions of human nature at each stage of social progress; and
competition, however imperfectly, has worked. It is evident from the
voices of praise and of blame that competition has its good and its
bad aspects. Let us observe first the good ones. Competition acts to
distribute the working force over the field of industry wherever it
is most needed. The remarkable (tho far from perfect) adjustment
of industry to the needs of each neighborhood is brought about by
individual motives, not by centralized authority. Wherever consumers
settle, stores are start