# Russell on inheritance of property > Paraphrased from the section on John Locke's political philosophy in Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Paraphrased from the section on 's in 's [A History of Western Philosophy](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/A%20History%20of%20Western%20Philosophy.txt). For context, this comes from the discussion of Locke's response to the contemporary view (Sir Robert Filmer's theory) that royal power was bestowed by God () and hereditary monarchy was natural. > It is interesting that, although (in modern times—the early 1940s, when Russell wrote the book—many countries) rejected hereditary political power, this had almost no influence on the economic institutions of democratic countries…. We still consider it natural for children to inherit their parents' property. In other words, we reject the inheritance of political power while accepting the inheritance of economic power. Political dynasties disappeared, but economic dynasties survived. > > … > > I am not now arguing for or against treating these two forms of power differently. I merely wish to point out that this difference exists, and that most people are unaware of it. Considering how naturally we regard one person's passing on wealth accumulated during a lifetime to another, we can better understand how someone like Sir Robert Filmer could consider hereditary monarchy natural. We can also better understand the importance of Locke's innovative position. … Perhaps in the future (the modern view that inheriting wealth is natural) will seem as fanciful as Filmer's theory. > > It is curious that the rejection of the hereditary principle in politics has had almost no effect in the economic sphere in democratic countries…. We still think it natural that a man should leave his property to his children; that is to say, we accept the hereditary principle as regards economic power while rejecting it as regards political power. > > … > > I am not at the moment arguing either for or against this different treatment of the two forms of power; I am merely pointing out that it exists, and that most men are unconscious of it. When you consider how natural it seems to us that the power over the lives of others resulting from great wealth should be hereditary, you will understand better how men like Sir Robert Filmer could take the same view as regards the power of kings, and how important was the innovation represented by men who thought as Locke did…. Perhaps in future this will seem as fantastic as Filmer seems now.