I think this doesn't quite jive with human nature. People have a naturally strong drive to build something and give to their kids. If there's no legitimate way to do that, then people will find other ways (whether illegal or just less honest means) to pass the things they've built to their children.
Sounds like you'd really enjoy reading Francis Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order" <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00457X7VI/>. He analyses how different cultures came to wrangle large states, showing how they all had to deal with the same issues although they dealt with them in different ways. The base issue is that the state has to replace the family as the strongest allegiance: a person holding office can't use that office to enrich their family, else eventually the state has nothing and warlord dynastic families result. So you get Janissaries (kidnapped Christian boys) as the elite fighting force in the Ottoman Empire, and the 11C (?) change in the Church that prevented priests from marrying (because they'd been enriching their families). Since I read the book, I can see that fundamental tension between state and family playing out everywhere. Highly recommended!
Lots of things don’t jive with human nature, like not murdering/stealing/etc, and yet we create systems to change that in ourselves rather than surrendering to our base instincts. If it's better that way, then we can always use a similar approach. All I'm saying is that 'human nature' isn't always good, and I'd rather keep it out of the decisioning process.
