Introduction: Hägglund’s critique of time and its limitations

Martin Hägglund’s This Life got me thinking with its fundamental ethical critique of capitalism. His central thesis: our lifetime is our most precious asset, and yet in the capitalist system it is put to work, controlled by others, exploited. We work more efficiently, more productively—and yet we do not get this time back. It flows into profits, not into freedom.

Hägglund’s answer: a democratic time economy in which the focus is not on profit but on the fair distribution of necessary and free time. A society in which everyone decides together what is necessary and in which automation does not lead to increased profits but to the reclamation of lifetime.

But as fascinating as his critique is, it remains too vague for me in economic terms. Who scrubs the floors? Who cleans the sewers when work is understood as a moral duty but no longer as a means of earning a living? How is work distributed when no one works out of necessity anymore? Hägglund’s utopia does not answer these questions. It eludes the realm of realpolitik.

I don’t have a ready-made counter-model. But one thought has taken hold in my mind: the greatest inequality is not created by income or consumer behavior. It is created by birth. And it is elevated to a structural level through inheritance—reproduced across generations as a silent prerequisite of the supposed principle of performance.

The real systemic flaw: wealth without performance

Capitalism claims to be based on performance. Those who perform well should receive a lot. But what about those who start out with millions before they have ever achieved anything? What about those who inherit nothing, even though they never had a fair chance?

Inheritance is not an achievement. It is not earned. It is the result of a biological accident: being born into a certain family. Those who have wealthy parents will live better, be better fed, better educated, and better connected. Not because they are better, but because they have a different starting point.

Inheritance is often considered “natural,” but it is a social construct—legally permitted, but by no means mandatory. We could shape it differently. Or abolish it altogether.

What is even more serious is that those who inherit a lot do not have to be productive. Capital accumulates. And with every death, another piece of society is dynastically entrenched. Often, this capital is no longer even used productively, but is parked in real estate, foundations, or corporate shares. And it remains there—unavailable to the society that created it.

This is not “capitalism” in the true sense of the word – it is a feudal-like structure with a market economy façade. The myth of the meritocracy is reduced to absurdity when wealth is not the result of action, but of descent. And with each generation, this structure becomes further entrenched. The market loses its dynamism when the game never really starts over.

A system correction: the legacy of the community

What if inheritance were simply abolished?

What if a person’s private property ceased to exist upon their death? Instead of going to their descendants, it would flow into a future fund. And this fund would have a single purpose: to provide every newborn with a fair amount of start-up capital.

A freely available basic capital—not a monthly payment like UBI, but a real building block: for an apartment, for a college education, for starting a business. Capital that creates opportunities without obligations. Everyone starts with a similar perspective. Differences arise from decisions, not from origin. Social mobility would not only be claimed, but realized.

The model is based on the consistent application of the principle of equality in light of determinism. Not all people have the same abilities or prerequisites. But everyone has the same moral right to a fair starting position.

UBI could also be funded from the same fund to support those who fail in life – without moral judgement. Because in determinism, there is no such thing as “deserving” in the classical sense. No one chooses their predisposition, their impulse control, their mental stability. So why should we punish some for ‘failure’ and reward others for “success”?

Furthermore, inheritance could not be abolished completely, but rather partially restructured as a right of first refusal. Items of emotional value—such as an old musical instrument or an heirloom with personal history—would often be of little economic significance. Heirs could “buy back” these items from their share of the future fund. This would preserve personal items without transferring dynastic wealth.

I am fully aware of how unrealistic such a proposal is given the emotional nature of the issue. Ownership is not only economic, but also identity-forming. The model contradicts deeply rooted ideas of family, responsibility, and passing on wealth. But precisely because these ideas are so powerful, it is worth questioning them. After all, they are not natural—they are culturally learned.

Capitalism, but fair: no system change, just a restructuring

Abolishing inheritance would not destroy capitalism. On the contrary, it would free it from one of its greatest contradictions. Capital could still be earned, owned, and used within a lifetime. The only difference is that ownership ends with death.

No dynastic ownership, no inherited empires. Capital flows back—to society, to the next generation. The system breathes. It does not freeze wealth, but allows it to circulate.

A side effect: the generational conflict that is often projected onto inheritance today – young people who cannot afford apartments while wealth remains hoarded by their parents’ generation – would be defused. There would no longer be a “property barrier,” no feelings of guilt about inheriting or not inheriting. The next generation would be collectively equipped with resources, not individually privileged or disadvantaged.

Another advantage: even in a system where people act out of selfish motives, the mechanism of returning capital to the fund would ultimately also strengthen the common good. The economic success of the individual automatically increases the resources available to the next generation. Society begins to actually build a common future.

From an economic perspective, this is not a zero-sum game. Although capital is taken out of the market to feed the fund, the fund itself is part of the market. It invests, reinvests, generates returns, and stabilizes demand through its broad distribution. Ideally, the fund would act as an active, long-term investor, financing both child benefits and the subsequent capital payout—e.g., at age 18 or 25.

This means that the funds would not have to be available in full in liquid form. Instead, they could be invested for the long term and already have an impact during the beneficiary’s childhood—through education, security, and prospects. Those who then spend the money at age 25 will still have benefited from 20 years of stable market investments. And those who use it wisely will reinforce the dynamic once again.

Starting a family without fear: an underestimated lever

An often overlooked advantage of this system is its effect on the birth rate. In affluent societies, parenthood is associated with considerable economic risks:

• Career restrictions
• Costs for education, childcare, housing
• Uncertainty about their children’s future prospects

Guaranteed start-up capital for every child – combined with unconditional child benefits – could significantly alleviate this pressure. Parents would have less to worry about when it comes to providing for their children. Even in low-income households, it would be clear that this child will grow up with prospects.

The decision to have a child would thus become less an act of self-sacrifice and more a conscious decision for the future.

Social, dynamic, stable

Unlike Hägglund, this proposal does not break the link between performance and pay. Those who do unpleasant work will continue to be paid for it. The labor market will remain intact. Only the structural advantage gained by birth will be eliminated.

Those who do not complete higher education will continue to take jobs that are less prestigious—but voluntarily, knowing that they had the same starting opportunities as everyone else. No one would be forced to take degrading work out of existential necessity. But no one would be able to rest on inherited wealth either.

It would be a system that creates freedom not through egalitarianism, but through equality of opportunity. Envy loses its breeding ground. Those who can afford a sports car have not inherited it, but have chosen it – perhaps at the expense of other things. Those who have little had the same start. The differences are the result of choices, not inequality. The result would not be a levelled society, but a relaxed one.

Economically, too, the system would not be weaker, but more resilient. Tied-up capital would be freed up, invested, and flowed into education, entrepreneurship, consumption, and creativity. There would be less speculation and more real economic circulation. There would be more security, more risk-taking, and more participation.

And there would be less fear. Fear of not leaving enough behind. Fear of failure. Fear of getting too little. This form of system design would not only be fairer—it would be more humane.

Social, dynamic, stable

Unlike Hägglund, this proposal does not sever the link between performance and pay. Those who do unpleasant work will continue to be paid for it. The labor market will remain intact. Only the structural advantage gained by birth will be eliminated.

Those who do not complete higher education will continue to take jobs that are less prestigious – but voluntarily, knowing that they had the same starting opportunities as everyone else. No one would be forced to take degrading work out of existential necessity. But no one would be able to rest on inherited wealth either.

It would be a system that creates freedom not through egalitarianism, but through equality of opportunity. Envy loses its breeding ground. Those who can afford a sports car have not inherited it, but have chosen it – perhaps at the expense of other things. Those who have little had the same start. The differences are the result of choices, not inequality. The result would not be a levelled society, but a more relaxed one.

Economically, too, the system would not be weaker, but more resilient. Tied-up capital would be freed up, invested, and flowed into education, entrepreneurship, consumption, and creativity. There would be less speculation and more real economic circulation. There would be more security, more risk-taking, and more participation.

And there would be less fear. Fear of not leaving enough behind. Fear of failure. Fear of getting too little. This form of system design would not only be fairer—it would be more humane.

Conclusion: Distribute opportunities, don’t defend them

This idea won’t fit on a protest sign. But perhaps it will find a place in the minds of those who understand justice not only as a question of distribution, but as a structural issue. Capitalism is not inherently unjust. But it needs a foundation that does not make the accident of birth the all-determining variable.

Abolishing inheritance would not be an act of revenge against the rich. It would be an act of liberation for all those who were sent into the race under false pretenses. It would be a new beginning, with birth as the only reset point.

And perhaps the first real step toward a society in which achievement really means something—because it can no longer be inherited, but arises from decisions, investment, and experience. A society that does not simulate equality, but stops inequality at its source. And perhaps also a society in which the term “equal opportunity” is finally more than just a rhetorical fig leaf.

The goal is not perfect equality, but a fair game. One in which everyone has the chance to play – without some starting with golden pieces while others have to start without a board.