The idea behind a will is that the deceased determines what happens after his or her death with Power and ((on) movable) matters.
In many countries (in my opinion also in the Netherlands) it is a legally valid document, if a notary was witness when signing it.
But yes, families know quarrels, feuds and enough other misery.That is also the reason that only wills, which are in the presence of a neutral witness under occupation (usually the notary present), are legally valid. And so that is also the reason, that should always be checked what was the last known testament. Even if other agreements have been made, which are not legally valid by a notary, only the last known valid Testament will apply.
What everyone ‘ deserves ‘ is largely already recorded in a (number of) Law (Ten).However, a testament can exclude people (or institutions, etc.) who are entitled to an inheritance. A testament can also add people (or institutions, etc.), who do not have the right to an inheritance.
In my opinion, the current system is sufficient.
The question is what you deserve.Suppose you are a child who has gone out of the house for 18 years and has not seen the parents for 50 years. What does someone deserve? How do you go about that? Why would you deserve something, what are you doing? Did I earn something from my mother? She has worked hard for her own retirement, what have I done to get her money? I think nothing at all. In the base I have nowhere right on and I did not deserve anything. I get what is that nicely taken, no more.
In my opinion, the current system works fine, the testament is decisive.With a little luck (happiness and no right!) we get some and the state gets some.
Define your “more liberal system” and give context to it “deserves”.
Maybe start with some points that you find wrong in question.
The inheritance is based on the freedom of the deceased.The law has contained this freedom by the duty part. The idea behind this will be that parents are responsible for their lagging children. An unwealthy child will be dependent on society more often than not through distributions etc. It is therefore understood that the Government has contained the freedom of movement, not to burden society with these costs in the light of the responsibility of the deceased. Incidentally, there is no inheritance for a child or spouse who has murdered the deceased. In other countries, there are also legal regulations that when children lose their responsibilities towards their parents, the deceased can be completely unpunished.In the Netherlands, the spouse can in any case be completely unterised without giving any reason.
Inheritance is in any case based on the will of the deceased, every other principle is an injustice.
How do you mean “earning”?Can you be something more specific?
What is meant here with deserves, is that what the person acquires to income or what he is personally worth and who determines how much this is?This is a fairly unclear question.