Once upon a time, a person could write a will and bequeath his assets in any way he chose. The word "will" in this context means the free will of a person to arrange the disposal of his assets after his death without interference. If that person wished to cut beneficiaries out of his will after changing his mind, that was his privilege. If that person decided to leave his wealth and assets to a home for stray cats, rather than his family, that was his right, because they were his assets to do with whatever he wanted.
Of course people who were left out of wills could contest them, but in most cases, if they could not prove that the testator was insane or unduly coerced or tricked into changing his will, then the testator's wishes as to whom would be the beneficiaries of his estate were respected, no matter what. There was never any expectation that a person had to provide for his offspring or relatives after he had died.
Somewhere along the line, state governments decided that a person who passed away had to provide for certain descendants and relatives, regardless of his intentions as stated in his will. So the situation arose where even completely estranged members of a person's family could contest that person's will and receive funds and assets that the testator never intended to grant to those people.
In other words, that deceased testator's will was not his will anymore. It was now the will of the court to determine who was to get the testator's estate. This negated the entire principle of giving a person the "will" to dispose of his estate after death as he desired, not as a court dictated. Not only that, the laws were changed to cancel the transfer of any assets of a person within three years of his death, to negate any attempts by that person to dispose of his own assets in the manner he saw fit before he died.
So if for instance an elderly person transferred all his assets to somebody he chose to benefit by them and then that person died within three years of the transfer, family, relatives and friends could crawl out of the woodwork and make application to a court to have the transfer of those assets nullified, so that they could get their hands on them, despite the wishes of the now dead testator.
The state governments passed these disgraceful laws because they considered that a testator had a responsibility to provide for his family and even some relatives, even if that testator hated the guts of those people and would have never wished to give any of them a cent. It is obvious that people have a responsibility to provide and support their kids if they are not yet adults, but it is very wrong for parents to be legally obligated to support those offspring once they become adults and are required to take responsibility for their own circumstances.
State governments may have thought that they were doing the right thing, but what they actually did was to deprive testators of their rights to dispose of their assets after their deaths as they saw fit and at the same time, they created a legal industry of rapacious lawyers, whose motive was to attack the wills of testators. The government also created a situation where people who were not related in any way to testators could lodge claims against that testator's estate and actually carve off a slice of it for no good reason.
Every person should have the unfettered legal right to to dispose of his own assets as he sees fit, without any government or legal interference. If for instance a person sold his $5 million mansion five years before he died and gave the money from the sale to a religious cult, there would be absolutely nothing that anybody could do about it, because that was his "will" to do this. So why the hell should it be different if that person does the same thing two years or even two days before his death? Why should a court be able to overturn such a disposition of assets like that if the testator is of sound mind?
State governments need to be forced to rescind all those laws that interfere with a testator's right to bequeath his assets to whoever he chooses, even if people who think that they are entitled to a piece or even all of that testator's estate are cut out of it completely. A person's "will" and his intentions, whether he is alive or dead, should be respected and the terms of his will should always be upheld.