The initial property division is done by a will because it is the only neutral way to decide who is to divide up an estate and how they are supposed to do it. If Bob leaves his boat to his daughter Charlotte instead of his son David, that is much cleaner than having David and Charlotte fighting over it.
After the estate is settled, the heirs are free to do whatever they want with their inherited property. If Charlotte didn't really care for the boat but David really wanted it, she is free to sell it to him or gift it outright. Or she can sell it to a third party. Charlotte shouldn't feel guilty or pressured by a dead man to enjoy the boat.
You are just choosing a precise meaning for "wishes" and hammering on that.
Look at the context and consider a scenario where a will has a statement that Facebook should be deleted (or frozen or whatever). The comment I replied to implies the statement shouldn't matter if someone living wants something else.
My meaning was something like the whole concept of a will is about respecting and recognizing the priorities expressed by the dead.
I don't disagree with what you say about what people do with things they inherit, but you are imputing an awful lot of meaning to make that a contradiction of my sentence that I posted above.
What if a will states that the deceased wants to be cremated with no funeral, wake nor any other ceremony? The wishes of the executor/executrix or next of kin to have a memorial service would likely trump that. I think someone's Facebook account is closer to this scenario than to a bank account, house, vehicle, or other property.
I'm sorry if I misconstrued your use of the word wishes. I feel that the whole concept of a will is the best solution that we as a society have found for determining what to do with a person's possessions when they die. The dead can't expect their priorities to be acted upon without question since it is the living who have to deal with the consequences of those priorities.
