what does it mean to support the "freedom to pass things to your children" when you don't believe in property at all? or in the family, for that matter.

any support for inheritance is a propertarian position, clearly.

so, as an anti-propertarian (a necessary ideological position to hold in order to exist on the left) in a propertarian system, i'm left with a choice to make in which policy i think is less harmful: is it more tyrannical to seize property, or more tyrannical to uphold it?

you might think that's a silly question, but that's because you're a propertarian, and you've probably never read the critiques of property. property is freedom, but only at the expense of others; property is theft, but in being so enriches the individual that has it.....and, property is therefore impossible in a truly free society.

in a truly free society, the issue consequently wouldn't exist. that is, you wouldn't debate inheritance, because we wouldn't own anything to pass down to our children to begin with. it would simply be understood that the property would go to somebody that needs it. we would all recognize the logic in it, and nobody would push back against it.

in the short term, i have to make a pragmatic choice in the presence of the existence of property. which option more closely emulates my actual position on property? clearly, seizing it does. allowing property to pass across family lines is upholding the basis of feudalism, after all, and putting state support behind the concept of class. seizing property and redistributing it is an inevitable step in the abolition of property, anyways.