This morning while cycling to the library, I was listening to a podcast of Money Box, a BBC radio show. This particular show was about investment advice and the whole panel recommended to split your investments in equities (shares or stocks) at around 50 to 50 between the UK and the rest of the world.
I was puzzled and I disagree profoundly:
First of all, I don’t see any reason why the UK economy or stock market should outperform the economies of other countries that have a stronger industry, more
The FTSE 100 over the last 5 years.
resources or other competitive advantages. But I don’t want to make this post about the merits of the UK economy and would instead prefer to raise the issue of geographical diversification:
Not only does the UK account for much less than 50 % of the world economy (were some panelists stuck in the days of the Empire?), but I think it is wise to invest as little as possible in your own country.
The reason for this is not any lack of patriotism, but risk diversification. The economy of the country in which you live already affects you every day. If it is booming, you will find a better job or get a pay rise, your business will have more turnover and profits, your cash reserves will grow in exchange rate value and you will be able to afford more holidays. If on the other hand your home economy is in a recession, you might lose your job or you will have fewer clients if you are self-employed. These fewer clients will also pay less and later.
Why would you want to put all eggs into one basket just because you were born in that basket or happen to live there? It’s smarter to profit from other economies’ growth while your country is going slow, and to gobble up cheap investments abroad while your country is booming. If you argue that most economies undergo the cycles of boom and bust
“Damn, this money doesn’t work anywhere else.”
together at the same time, then this is still no argument why you prefer your own country disproportionately.
I can see that for UK investors this strategy involves the risk of exchange rate fluctuations because they cannot buy anything anywhere in the world for British Pounds, but that’s just another argument for joining the Euro.
Who would have thought that access to my blog is blocked if you are trying to read it from Iran, after I have published so many articles about Iran? The censors of the Islamic Republic don’t seem to like what I write. Luckily, I remember from my last visit to Iran in June 2009 that almost everyone in Iran knew how to circumvent the internet censorship by using proxy servers:
I was sitting in an internet café (in Iran they are called “coffee-net”) at Enqelab Avenue in Tehran and couldn’t access the sites of BBC or CNN. A woman sitting next to me noticed my despair and gave me her memory stick and explained that I should copy a programme called FreeGate which would help me to circumvent the censorship. It worked very well and after looking at the screens of the other users in this internet café, I noticed that more than half must have been using this or similar software because they were watching the YouTube video of the death of Neda Agha-Soltan who had just been shot and killed 2 days before.
This is what blocked sites looked like in Iran in June 2009:
When this site first appeared on my screen, I was afraid what the people sitting to my left and right or the owner of the internet café would do, but they just smiled knowingly.
If you live in any other country that regularly blocks internet sites, like North Korea, China, Syria (I remember from my visit to Syria that all websites with an .il domain [from Israel] were blocked) or Cuba, could you please take a screenshot of what it looks like when you try to access a blocked site and e-mail it to me? Thank you very much in advance!
Here is a screenshot of what my blog looks like in Iran in 2011:
The current censorship not only blocks my site, but helpfully suggests many other alternatives for your virtuous browsing.
From a friend in Turkmenistan, I heard in January 2012 that my blog is blocked there. A message “The requested URL was not found” pops up.
Some technological advances make me shake my head with incredulity.
After I have painfully learnt that some people talk about their computer when they talk about an “Apple”, they could now be referring to the real fruit after all:
A German website, www.mundraub.org, allows users to post information about fruit-bearing trees that they have spotted in their neighbourhood the ownership for which is either not claimed by anyone or the owner of which has consented to passers-by picking the fruits for themselves for free.
The service comes just in time for the season and the map, which is already full of entries, even specifies what kind of fruits you can expect to find, from apples and pears to mirabelles and plumes. The service has meanwhile been extended to nuts, herbs and berries.
It’s probably a nice and friendly service, but to someone like me who remembers a time before the internet and mobile phones, it seems like these inventions have deprived people of any taste for spontaneity. Does everything really need to be planned in advance?
I didn’t need any internet to find these olive trees.
I still prefer to go for a walk across the fields or through the forest without any advance planning. If I find mushrooms, I’ll pick mushrooms. If I find grapes, I’ll eat grapes. If I find nothing, I’ll still enjoy the sun and the air and the birds. – I guess I am too romantic for the 21st century; or at least too old-fashioned.
(I have to concede though that the name of the website is well chosen and of some interest to lawyers and legal historians: “Mundraub” used to be a lesser form of theft, especially of food or drinks for personal use, until this specific offence was removed from the German Criminal Code in 1975. It carried a lesser sentence – and no sentence at all if the victim of the theft was a child or spouse.)
The following essay about the self-ownership thesis was written as part of my MA in Philosophy and tries to answer the question “‘The intuition that motivates the self-ownership thesis and that generates its inegalitarian consequences rests on the idea that I own parts of my body. However, though the relationship of me to my body is intimate, it makes no sense to conceive of it in terms of property rights.’ Is this true?”
Of all my essays so far, this one received the lowest mark which might reflect that I was in a hurry to put my thoughts onto paper just before I set off for my walk across England this summer. I still think it contains some good thoughts though which I might develop further in the future:
I. The self-ownership thesis
The self-ownership thesis describes the “idea that I (rather than anyone else) own myself, and so I ought to determine the way in which my life proceeds, in the same way I determine what happens to my other possessions.”1 This ownership of oneself is then extended to the fruits of one’s labour2: “If I own myself, then […] I must own my talents, and […] I own whatever I produce with my talents.”3
The earliest statement to that regard can be found in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, first published in 16894: “[…] every Man has a Property in his own person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, […] are properly his.”5
One of the most outspoken contemporary proponents of the self-ownership thesis is the libertarian Robert Nozick6 who laid out his thoughts in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 19747.
The self-ownership thesis is relevant for many philosophical and ethical debates, for example (assisted) suicide8, prostitution, the selling of body parts9, but Nozick concentrates on taxation10. For him, “taxation of earnings from labour is on a par with forced labour”11 because if someone (usually the state) is entitled to (part) of one’s earnings, then that someone owns (part of) that other person12.
II. Does this idea rest on the idea that persons own parts of their body?
Although Sandel calls the idea of self-ownership “the moral crux of the libertarian claim”13and the idea of owning one’s body, logically including the ownership of one’s body parts, is used by libertarian philosophers as one argument for their world-view, I would not say that libertarianism “rests” on the self-ownership thesis and even less on the specific idea of owning parts of ones body.
Quite a few authors though claim that self-ownership is an intuition14 which can be inspired by thought experiments involving body parts: Nozick15 and Wolff16 introduce the “eye lottery”, an example in which most people are born with two healthy eyes, but some are blind. Transplantation technology is so advanced that one of the two eyeballs of a healthy person could be transplanted into a blind person, so that both could see17. They compare the (forced) redistribution of eyes to taxation and hope that the reader’s shock at the forced removal of body parts will transfer to redistributive policies.
III. Does it make sense to conceive of one’s body in terms of property rights?
With me, this example fails to arouse any intuition for self-ownership, mostly because I find the comparison between an “eyeball lottery” rather poor, but possibly also because of a stronger intuition for some sort of equality or egalitarianism18.
The first fundamental difference is that in the eyeball lottery, people’s body parts/assets/abilities would be removed, whereas taxation of income only removes parts of the fruits. The assets or the abilities to work and gain income are not removed, they can continue to be used.
One reason why the eyeball lottery seems so gruesome is that it is not made clear who decides based on what who will have to give up one of his/her eyeballs, making it sound arbitrary. Taxation however is not based on an arbitrary lottery, but on one’s productivity, wealth and ability. Everyone (at least in countries with a rule of law) can know in advance how much taxes he/she will have to pay at a certain income level.
The later point is even stronger in a democracy where laws about taxation have been decided about by an elected legislature. Sandel19 points out that the respective taxpayer might not agree with this tax policy, which is a fair point. However, in democracies at least, everyone may participate in the debate about taxation. Also, whenever I read libertarians’ ranting against taxation, I wonder if they don’t use roads or libraries or don’t want to enjoy the protection by the fire brigade, the police department and by the military.
But even beyond the limited use of the “eyeball lottery” example, I don’t think that “ownership” or “property” is the right concept to think about our bodies:
Ownership in its usual and its legal sense extends to things exclusively20, not to persons. One reason for the necessity of the legal instrument of ownership is the desire to trade and transfer things with others. This transferability is therefore an important part of property rights, but not many wish to allow persons to be transferred into the ownership of others. This would constitute slavery. I don’t see what is gained by introducing a thesis that is in effect self-slavery and that would – if no limits are applied – permit voluntary enslavement21. When Locke and Grunebaum argue that such transfers are not allowed even under the self-ownership thesis because they undermine one’s authority22, they have to be asked why they don’t apply the same verdict to (equally voluntary) acceptance of low pay for his/her labour by someone in need.
From the nexus between ownership and trade stems another attribute of anything that is owned: it needs to be quantifiable and can be attributed a (market) value. While persons can of course be counted, they should not be able to be attributed a value as expressed in things, money or even other persons (as in: 1 Peter is worth 2 Pauls). Human dignity demands that human life is not measured in terms of value.
Of course one could argue that exactly because persons are different than things, self-ownership does not require the same elements as ownership of things. But then I have to ask: What is the use of the term ownership in connection with persons good for?23 If one owns something that is not transferable and cannot be attributed a value, that sounds like a rather empty right.
I cannot quite get rid of the suspicion that the term “self-ownership” is indeed designed to make something sound grander and more positive than it really is. It sounds like a noble principle that empowers every man and woman.
But self-ownership can be a hollow right: If one is born crippled or in a drought-ridden African country during a time of famine, one might in theory own oneself, but one is not – as the term implies – the master of one’s fate.
In response to the libertarians’ example of the “eye lottery”, I would like to present an example of a much harsher and gruesome lottery: the “lottery of life”. I was one of those who have been lucky in this lottery of life, because I was born in Central Europe during a time of peace and prosperity. Next month, I will turn 36 and I will thus have surpassed the average life expectancy of people in Swaziland. Had I not had the luck of being born in Germany, but had I been born in Swaziland, I would now be (statistically) dead. In the moment of a person’s birth, a large part of his/her chances in life are already determined24. A lottery doesn’t get much harsher than this, and unlike the example picked by Nozick to try to convince us of his aversion of taxes, this one is reality.
I suggest that, when looking at reality instead of made-up examples at least, the intuition for egalitarianism, fairness and social justice are stronger and more compelling than any intuition for self-ownership. Maybe it’s no coincidence that there are not many libertarians in the Sahel.
IV. Conclusion
However, having negated self-ownership, I cannot extend this verdict to libertarianism itself because I don’t think libertarianism rests on this.
Self-ownership seems to be more an additional argument which is derived from the opposition between being owned by others (which was a real possibility in Locke’s time25) and owning oneself. And this step I think includes a fallacy. For if a person cannot be owned by anyone else (a belief which has become axiomatic by now), it does not logically follow that this person owns himself or herself. Because it is absolutely possible that something or someone is owned by no one, cannot be owned. The fact that humans cannot be owned, by nobody, is freedom at its ultimate.
The concept of items not being able to be owned is nothing too unusual for even commercially inclined thinkers to accept, as they do for example with the air around us. If some of our most precious natural resources are free of any ownership, I don’t see why humans can’t be.
The idea of freedom itself is strong enough to be a solid foundation for libertarianism. It does not need the additional argument discussed in this paper, but it also cannot be discounted as easily.
1Pike: 117; Vallentyne 2010: introduction
2Sandel 2010: 65
3Pike: 121 describing Locke’s analysis
4Pike: 120
5Locke, 1960 edition of Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett, editor, Cambrige, Cambridge University Press; quoted by Pike: 120
16Wolff, J., 1991. Robert Nozick: Property Justice and the Minimal State, Stanford, Stanford University Press; quoted by Pike: 123
17This example is also discussed by Christman 1991: 11.
18An intuition also mentioned by Pike: 125 and discussed throughout the study material
19Sandel 2010: 68
20For example § 903 of the German Civil Code
21Vallentyne 2010: section 1
22Vallentyne 2010: section 1
23Barry 1996: 4 seems to argue along the same line.
24The notion of luck is an element in John Rawls’ Theory of Justice: Pike: 122
25For some context of Locke’s thoughts about self-ownership see Pike: 121
Bibliography
Books:
Sandel, Michael J. (2010) Justice: What’ the right thing to do?, London, Penguin.
Papers:
Barry, B. (1996) You have to be crazy to believe it, The Times Literary Supplement, 25 October 1996, page 28 (reprinted as reading 5.1 for the Postgraduate Foundation Module in Philosophy, Milton Keynes, The Open University, and quoted by the pages of the reprint).
Christman, John (1991) Self-Ownership, Equality, and the Structure of Property Rights, Political Theory, 19, no 1, 28-46 (reprinted as reading 5.5 for the Postgraduate Foundation Module in Philosophy, Milton Keynes, The Open University, and quoted by the pages of the reprint).
Study material:
Pike, Jon (year unknown) Self-Ownership, A850 Postgraduate Foundation Module in Philosophy, Chapter 5, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Some lawyers have an odd concept of legal research.
As a lawyer from a civil law jurisdiction (Germany), I generally start with a look into the codes and statutes. If you are from a common law jurisdiction and nobody in your country has yet bothered to neatly and conveniently codify the law, you already have a tougher job.
But this one lawyer from Russia thought“why bother?” and just e-mailed me with the following question:
Betreff: residence permit in Germany
Von: Maria Vorontsova
Datum: Di, 16.08.2011, 07:16
An: moser@moser-law.com
Dear Andreas Moser!
I am writing to you to clarify what are the most convenient ways to get residence permit in Germany and how much does it cost? What documents should the client have? Thank you!
Kind regards,
Maria Vorontsova, the lawyer of “Honest & Bright Company Ltd” 125047, Moscow, the 3d Tverskaya Yamskaya Street, 26, office 5+7 (495) 661-60-48; http://www.hbcomp.co.uk
Honestly, even most non-lawyers would pose a better question. I was still patient and pointed out that I would need a few more details before I could answer this question:
Hello Maria,
that depends on the type of residence permit of course, whether it is for employment, for studying or for family reunion. But to give specific advice, i would need to know much more about the respective client because the requirements vary depending on the applicant’s citizenship, professional background, family ties, language capabilities and so on. In how much detail do you want the information? What is your budget approximately?
The fact that the immigration law of Germany, the biggest economy in Europe, is a bit more complex seemed to catch Ms Vorontsova by surprise:
Well, I see. Could you please provide us the information about different variants? We’d be happy for at least general information, not considering EU residenship, student status and so on. The budget is not important, we just want to know approximately how much that could cost in Germany.
Thanks in advance!
Kind regards,
Maria Vorontsova
Whenever I hear “the budget is not important” I already know that the client won’t pay. I quoted my price and – as expected – never heard from Ms Vorontsova again, despite my friendly reminder one week later.
The “Honest & Bright Company Ltd” offers “Legal services for serious people from true English company”, according to their own website. Well, the legal research they use is not better than their grammar. Better stay away from them. If you want to get a competent and free overview over German law, my FAQ about German law are a better source of information.
I only recently heard about the Anarchist Federation because of their statement about the England riots. To me, “Anarchist Federation” sounded oxymoronic.
Their website explains:
"This symbol may be spray-painted on the walls of previously designated buildings, but only within the times permitted and only by anarchists chosen by the spray-painting committee."
The Anarchist Federation is a growing organisation of like-minded people from across the British Isles who aim to … create a free and equal world, without leaders and bosses.
It is organised
in local groups
and they
coordinate worldwide through the International of Anarchist Federations.
If you agree with the aims and principles of the Anarchist Federation,
you may apply for membership
but
please note joining the AF requires a level of commitment. Depending on where you live you will either join a local group of AF members or, if there are no other members nearby, join as an individual member. Unfortunately, we cannot accept membership if you live outside the UK and Ireland.
They have a constitution which
contains more information about how the AF is structured as an organisation and expectations for individual members and groups.
Today is the 25th birthday of Gilad Shalit. It is the 6th birthday that he has to experience in captivity. When he was kidnapped, he was a boy of 19. Now he is a man, but one who has been deprived of enjoying the prime of his life, these years in which we attend university, have our first job, our first serious relationship, maybe even start a family.
Gilad Shalit is a dual citizen of France and Israel who was doing his compulsory military service in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as a corporal. On 25 June 2006, he was kidnapped by Palestinian militants from the Israeli side of the border near Kerem Shalom. The militants had dug a tunnel underneath the border, ambushed the Israeli patrol on Israeli territory, killed two IDF soldiers and kidnapped Gilad Shalit to Gaza. He has been held in Gaza ever since.
Only after more than three years in captivity, in September 2009, was the first video of Gilad Shalit released by the Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas:
Efforts to negotiate Gilad Shalit’s release have so far not been successful, mainly because the hostage-takers demand the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, among them convicted murderers.
I often think of Gilad Shalit when Palestinians, or people who blindly take up anything that is called “the Palestinian cause”, talk about “the occupation of Gaza”. Gilad Shalit is the only Israeli soldier in Gaza. This boy who was a 19-year old corporal at the time is not an occupying force, he is a hostage. At the time of his capture, there was no more Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip. Israel had withdrawn all its military, its police and even Israeli civilians (many of them against their will) from Gaza in 2005, almost one year before Gilad Shalit’s capture. Gilad Shalit and his unit were on Israeli territory when he was kidnapped.
Gilad Shalit is not a prisoner of war, but a hostage. There was no military confrontation between Hamas and Israel at the time of his capture. Gilad Shalit, his family and his home countries are being denied the basic rights extended to prisoners of war (POW), for example visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the right to know the POW’s location or the right to correspondence with his family.
When Gilad Shalit was 11 years old, he wrote a story at school, called “When the Shark and the Fish first met”. It is a story about a shark and a fish who meet and become friends. Part of it reads:
In the evening, the shark returned to his home.
His mother asked:
“How was your day, my dear shark? How many animals did you devour today?”
The shark answered: “Today I didn’t devour any animals, but I played with an animal called FISH”.
“That fish is an animal we eat. Don’t play with it!” said the shark’s mother.
At the home of the fish, the same thing happened. “How are you, little fish? How was it today in the sea?” asked the fish’s mother.
The fish answered: “Today I played with an animal called SHARK.”
“That shark is the animal that devoured your father and your brother. Don’t play with that animal,” answered the mother.
It’s a beautiful story which you can read in full here.
Happy birthday, Gilad! I hope you will be free soon.
Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, both 28, were travelling through Iraqi Kurdistan and visited the Ahmed Awa waterfall which is on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq border. It is unclear if they accidentally ventured into Iranian territory on their hike or if the Iranian border patrol arrested them in Iraqi territory.
The American hikers are being held at Evin prison in Tehran, where I was imprisoned for one week in the summer of 2009. Because of my own experience, I have special sympathy with Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer. Having been to Evin for one week was the toughest experience of my life; I cannot imagine what it must be like to spend two, let alone eight years there.
It is from this perspective and with this background that I want to answer the following questions:
Can they appeal the court ruling?
Yes, they can. But we must not think of this affair as a judicial proceeding. It is labelled a trial, but it isn’t. Iran does not have an independent judiciary, it is not governed by the rule of law and lawyers who stand up for their clients go to jail themselves. Iran is an autocracy in which laws, courts and judges are just another means of oppression.
We also must not think of the Iranian state as a monolithic entity. There are many different factions, some more religious than others, some more radical than others, some might think that a rapprochement with the US and the West in general is a worthwhile goal, others think that America will always be “the Great Satan”. Even experts have therefore been notoriously unable to explain or predict the moves of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Why did Josh and Shane travel to Iraq in the first place? Everyone knows it’s dangerous.
This is the question that drives me crazy. It puts the blame on the victims. The three American hikers had been travelling Northern Iraq which had been absolutely safe and had become a tourist destination. They were going to see a waterfall. There is nothing criminal or wrong about this. The fault lies exclusively with the state that captured and imprisoned them.
Unfortunately, many people are quick to comment who are themselves couch potatoes and whose biggest adventure in live has been a weekend in Las Vegas. These people will never understand that in order to gain a real understanding of the Middle East, one has to travel, experience, speak to people.
I feel very sorry for Josh and Shane not only because of their very long imprisonment, but also because I know from my own experience after my release from Evin prison that 95 % of people will tell them “Why on earth did you go there?” (“there” referring to any part of this world that doesn’t have a McDonald’s or where you have to speak another language). Many will think “You got what you deserved”, and some will even say so. – In my experience, it was actually Iranians who had the most understanding, because they know from experience that being arrested in Iran doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong, and who often apologised for their regime.
But how do you know the three US hikers weren’t really spies?
They were definitely not, for at least two reasons:
No country would send spies to Iran that don’t speak Farsi , don’t look Persian, don’t have an Iranian name, don’t have any contact there, and so on. These three hikers would have stood out in Tehran like the proverbial sore thumb, especially because Iran does not attract much Western tourism. If somebody wanted to send spies to Iran, one would recruit from the vast community of Iranian exiles or refugees.
No intelligence agency would ever send three agents to a hostile country together in one group. They would go independently of each other, at different times, using different routes. Ideally, they would not even know each other.
I assume that the Iranian intelligence service already thought that Shane Bauer is a spy because his name is so similar to Jack Bauer of “24”, a series which also has many fans inside Iran.
So what can we do to get them released?
First, let’s be clear about what won’t help: Appeals, letters, press releases. I can already see the many statements “condemning” this verdict and “appealing” for mercy. This is all a waste of time.
Sarah Shourd was released on bail of 500.000 $. Maybe we could also pay ransom for the two remaining hikers, but the price has certainly gone up. You could think of the eight years prison sentence as the price tag which has to be converted into money, arms (remember the Iran-Contra affair?) or political favours.
So what can we do that Iran wants? Not much, if we want to stick to the sanctions. We could stop secretly attacking the Iranian nuclear programme (if we even do that), but if that works, Iran will just hold on to the hostages as security. We could allow Iran more influence in its two neighbouring countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, but as we get ready to pull out soon, Iran will gain this influence anyway.
One contemporary movement in the US certainly angers Iran and we could easily give that up: the campaign to remove the “People’s Mujahedin of Iran” from the list of terrorist organisations. I doubt if this will be enough, but if the US wants to approach the diplomatic route, this will have to be one of the first steps.
There is no (para)military option to liberate and extract the prisoners. The daring attempt by Ross Perot to liberate two of his employees from an Iranian prison in 1979 did not succeed militarily; the prison was stormed during the course of the Islamic Revolution and all inmates were freed. Operation Eagle Claw, the attempt to liberate the US embassy hostages, failed. – Evin prison is located on the very Northern outskirts of Tehran, surrounded by mountains. The closest entry point into Iran to reach Tehran would be through the Caspian
Not an option.
Sea in which we have neither a base, nor any forces. From both Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s too far to fly undetected. Ashgabat in Turkmenistan, is used by the US military as an airport, but is still 670 km away. Even at maximum speed, this means more than two hours of flight time for a Black Hawk helicopter. – And even if you find the two men in the quite large complex of Evin prison (I was driven around by car between several buildings during my stay there) you would still need to get back to safety. Impossible.
This leaves only one option: We need to arrest Iranians abroad whom the Iranian government would want to get freed, and then there will be a prisoner exchange. This suggestion might be inspired by my upbringing during the Cold War, but I think it’s the only strategy that will work. There are plenty of representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran who do not enjoy diplomatic immunity (trade delegations, Press TV, companies held by the Iranian state).
In Germany, there is an informal rule in political debate: if you have to invoke a Nazi-comparison, you have lost the argument because you have displayed that you have no serious arguments left.
I am less concerned by the effects this outrageous comment will have on Mr Johnson. He’s a politician, he has a tough skin.
I am more enraged because of the trivialization of Adolf Hitler: Comparing a mass-murdering, anti-Semitic, racist dictator who ordered the Holocaust and waged war against half of the world to a freely elected mayor of London is not only wrong and stupid, but it is also an insult against the victims of the Nazi tyranny.
And what are these religious references (“good and evil”, “judgement day”, “Archangel Gabriel”) about? Does Mr Livingstone think he is God’s second son?
At least he seems to think that he is Churchill. That would also explain why he is so obsessed about running for mayor again after he lost to Mr Johnson in 2008. After all, Mr Churchill served as Prime Minister twice (1940-45 and 1951-55).
I am a swing voter somewhat left to the centre and I would usually choose between Labour, Liberal Democrats or the Green Party in any election, based on the respective candidate and the current issues. – But Labour in London have lost my vote for the election of mayor in 2012. In fact, I might be voting Conservative for the first time in my life.
(I contacted Mr Livingstone’s Director of Media Mr Joe Derrett on 18 and on 28 August 2011, asking for the full context in which these remarks fell. I never received a reply.)
I have noticed that I receive many e-mails with the same questions, so I have begun to post the most frequent questions – and of course the answers to them – for everyone to read. For free, can you believe that?! As this section might already answer many of your questions, I invite you to browse these FAQ before you contact me (or any other lawyer) about your case.
Before asking a new question, please read through the many comments which may already answer your questions. And if you find these FAQ useful or if you ask a new question, it would be very nice if you make a donation. Thank you! (After all, if you are on this page, you are about to receive a huge inheritance.)
1. Which law applies in international inheritance cases?
Art. 21 of the EU Succession Regulation sets out the basic rule: The succession shall be governed by the law of the country where the deceased had his/her habitual residence. In cases of several residences or of highly mobile people, you can imagine that this opens up room for interpretation.
And it becomes even more complicated, because there are several exceptions. The most important of them is Art. 22 of the EU Succession Regulation, which allows a person writing a will to choose the law of one of the countries that he/she is a citizen of.
As the inheritance laws of different countries (and sometimes between different jurisdictions in the same country) vary quite a bit, it is imperative to think about which law to choose. If you are a foreign citizen living in Germany, choosing foreign law can pose an enormous benefit, because it is often a way to circumvent the strict German rules on forced heirship (see no. 3 below).
2. Who inherits under German law if I have no will?
That depends on your family situation.
If you only have two children and no other relatives, nor a surviving spouse, both your children will inherit 50%. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. No lawyer needed.
If on the other hand, you have a surviving spouse, several children from different mothers/fathers, half-siblings, cousins, uncles and aunts of varying degrees, then the whole thing can become a proper mess. Even more so if somebody did something they shouldn’t have done, for example fathering a child with their sister. Is that offspring a child or a nephew? Or both? Will he/she receive 1/17 or 2/17?
Sometimes, it’s as confusing as those Greek tragedies, where everyone is related with everyone else in the most convoluted ways.
3. I don’t care about my relatives. Can’t I simply decide who gets the house, the car, my books and the dog?
Ehm, it’s not quite that easy.
German law has a system of “forced heirship” (§ 2303 BGB) which means that children, parents and the spouse are entitled to a certain minimum of the estate, even if you have not listed them in your will or – and that’s shocking – even if you have explicitly removed them from your will.
So, while you can disinherit someone in your will, he/she can sue to receive a legal minimum. Only in cases of gross misconduct on the part of the potential heir towards the deceased can they be excluded completely (§ 2333 BGB).
4. And how do I write a will?
The two main forms are the notarized will (which requires a notary public, of course) and the privately written will. They both enjoy equal legal validity.
The privately written will has to be handwritten, signed and dated (§ 2247 BGB). The biggest mistake that people make is to download some form of the internet, print it out, and sign it. It’s void, because the whole document needs to be handwritten. – Why? Because the law dates from 1896 and it says so.
As to the form of the will, Art. 27 of the EU Succession Regulation also gives you plenty more options if you are a foreign citizen or have other ties abroad. As indicated in no. 1 above, if you are in that situation, it’s really worthwhile to look into all the possibilities that you can choose from.
5. Do you have any advice about what to put into a will?
My main advice is: Don’t try to control the future by writing a will.
This is a mistake that many people make. They think they can use a will to exert influence on the lives of others, long after they will have been gone. They set up complicated trusts and appoint executors and administrators, on whom they put onerous conditions and detailed provisions. They limit what their children and surviving spouse can do with the estate. They detail the succession down to the generation of their great-grandchildren, but of course only if they get a college degree.
And then life turns out differently. The son dies before his parents. A picture-perfect couple splits up because the husband wants to hike the length of the Amazon. That lovely daughter-in-law is really an IRS informant. The company, which was all your pride, loses market share and slips into irrelevance.
What I am trying to say: Accept mortality.
When it’s over, it’s over. And if you want somebody to receive your paintings, your books or some money, give it to them now. You don’t need to wait until it will be too late.
6. If I have written a will, can I change it later?
Usually yes.
You do this either by destroying the will (if there is only one copy), or by writing a new one, in which you include the explicit remark that the new will supersedes the old one.
However, if you signed a joint will with your spouse or a contract of inheritance, you may be bound by the will even if you no longer want to be. That’s why you should think really hard before signing any such document.
7. You are right, this whole family business is rather uncertain. Can I leave everything to my dog?
No.
And actually, animals don’t care about money and stuff. Which sometimes makes me believe that they are more advanced than us humans.
You could bequeath your dog to someone, under the condition that they continue to take care of the dog, but this leads to all the problems I alluded to above in no. 5.
8. What if I don’t want to inherit?
If you don’t want to inherit (for example if the estate includes more debts than assets, or because you simply don’t want to deal with any of your relatives), you can refuse to accept the inheritance.
However, you need to explicitly declare that you reject the inheritance within 6 weeks of your knowledge of the inheritance (§ 1944 I, II BGB). If you live outside of Germany, this limitation period is 6 months (§ 1944 III BGB).
9. Does Germany tax inheritance?
You bet.
The tax rate depends on the amount inherited and on how closely related you were to the deceased. As a child, for example, 400.000 EUR are tax free. Above this threshold, the tax rate progresses from 7 % to 30 %. The maximum tax rate (for non-related heirs) is 50 %.
10. How do I decide whom my children will stay with in case of my death?
Josh Fattal
The Happy Hermit 