In another thread Platypus stated "dead people do not have rights".

As a counter, I stated if that was so, then why do we allow people to have wills which express their wants after their death.

Do you believe dead people have rights?

If not, how do you argue the fact we use wills as a way provide for their wishes after their death?

I guess I should answer, considering that I inspired/provoked the thread.

Dead people do not have rights. Survivors do, to the extent that they have a shared interest in the deceased's wealth. How does such a shared interest develop? Going back to the real John Locke (not the parody we have here) I'd say it's the same way wealth is always created - by "mixing one's labor with the land". It's not just land, of course, and not all labor is equal, but the principle's the same: you gain wealth, or a stake in wealth, through labor. A spouse, for example, could very well be considered to have labored alongside the deceased and have a stake in the deceased's wealth. The same could be said of offspring...or perhaps not. Ditto for friends, organizations of which the deceased was a member, and so on.

Here's the sticking point, though: society (through the state) has also contributed to that wealth by providing an environment and enforcement of a social contract by which that labor and wealth creation was made possible, and therefore also has a stake. That interest competes with the interests of designated survivors, and should be balanced with those interests - neither 100% estate tax nor 0% estate tax is therefore likely to be valid. A will is a kind of statement by the deceased about who "deserves" a portion of wealth through having participated in having created it, but it is not the be-all and end-all; it is still subject to interpretation both by survivors and by the state. That's why there is such a thing as probate law, including spouse/descendant provisions that can override the textual contents of a will (in many jurisdictions). There's a whole lot wrong with who estate/probate law works right now, but the basic concept of a tripartite agreement (decedent, survivors, state) regarding decedents' assets is a valid one.

Interesting question.

I think it is because a living person has the right (within certain restrictions) to direct the use of her property after her death. Wills are the expression of the wishes of a living person, not the rights of a dead person.

Yes, but once they die do we have to abide by those wishes? Because now that they are dead they have no rights.

Good point. I would say that the laws which exist in order to enforce wills and the like are designed to provide assurance to the living person that her wishes will be carried out (within stated limits) after her death. In other words, the law protects the rights of the living person in 2003 (by providing mental comfort, etc.) by enforcing actions taken in 2050. The benefit of the law operates in 2003, although the actions of the law operate in 2050.