re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

quote:

---

How is this different from a gift made the day before death?

---

Because someone who exists actively transfers ownership. He no longer owns the thing. It now belongs to someone else.

If the owner disappears, he is no longer in possession (even abstract possession) of the thing. He can't be benefited or harmed by ownership or lack thereof of the object.

quote:

---

Since no one knows exactly when they will die, allowing transfer instructions to be recorded in advance is simply the practical mechanism for exercising a right that already exists.

---

Do you consider this a natural right? Or just one stick in the bundle of sticks of socially constructed property rights?

quote:

---

I'm confused by what is meant by "someone else's stuff" here.

---

Their belongings. What they own.

quote:

---

Do you dispute the idea that someone has the right to dispose of their own stuff however they see fit?

---

I acknowledge that we have built a society that accepts, protects and litigates property rights. I'm not suggesting any policy to deviate from that. I'm questioning the premise for posthumous disposal rights.

quote:

---

What would the source be?

---

Society wanting to create customs that decrease the chances of conflict and negative outcomes, using trial and error.

Which ties into the succession/estate example I gave you earlier.

The less clear the rules are on how that property is divided, the higher the chance of conflict that arises over that property division.

Same reason why murder and stealing are universally punished.

On the flip side, some of these become outdated as societies advance. The shellfish, pork, and circumcision examples I posted earlier...but you can also get into the weeds with things like adultery, too. As society advances, we debate the relevancy of these outdated regulations, which is where you see the typical progressive-liberal/conservative-traditionalist split. This debate is a back and forth that moves to the progress-liberal side, net, as long as society advances. When society devolves, your conservative-traditional customs return with force (typically, literally)

We have been doing this for like 6,000 years

*ETA: as this net progress-liberal advancement occurred, you saw what I posted on page 1

quote:

---

Power begat laws begat religion begat rights

---

This is a very interesting pivot. Now I want a short bio for you, too

quote:

---

When did man ever survive without property rights?

---

The 200-300 thousand years prior to society developing about 6-12k years ago

quote:

---

But even then, they didn't lack property rights, they had informal ones. Personal tools, weapons, clothing, and food stores were recognized as belonging to individuals.

---

How would we ever know this?

The humans who live most like this now are much more communal and egalitarian than how we see modern society.

quote:

---

Is democracy not a social construct? Money? Capitalism?

Something can be legitimate and still be a social construct.

---

I don't know if you are doing it purposefully, but you are taking liberties with language here and in other posts.

Can you give us an example of something that is not a social construct?

quote:

---

How would we ever know this?

---

The earliest evidence of people buried with their belongings was 100,000 to 130,000 years ago. This showed a people willing to forego taking Groks stuff when he died as it was perceived to belong to him and not the community.

That’s probably the best we can do and actually pretty remarkable when you think about it.

quote:

---

The earliest evidence of people buried with their belongings was 100,000 to 130,000 years ago. This showed a people willing to forego taking Groks stuff when he died as it was perceived to belong to him and not the community.

That’s probably the best we can do and actually pretty remarkable when you think about it.

---

But as I pointed out (the edit may have been before your post), the closest societies we have to this life are much more communal and egalitarian and not as focused on things like property (and I'd imagine they have customs of similar burial rites). I don't understand the logic in pretending the more extreme, proto-version of this sort of lifestyle would more mimic the concepts and cultures of civilized society.

quote:

---

Did slaves own themselves? They were coerced by force to obey, but does that coercion mean their innate understanding was wrong, or simply that it was being violated?

---

As you might can tell from my post history, I would reject the idea of self-ownership, at least as is seemingly described in this thread. My assertion: we did not bring ourselves into being; we each have a purpose; and we have duties that limit what actions we take.

We are a steward of our life to use it as directed by our creator toward our purpose (telos), subject to our duties to our creator and to other men. This is why I would view suicide as immoral—if I own myself, I can dispose of myself as I wish, but I am not my own.

Regarding slavery—I don’t view slavery as evil because it’s a violation of self ownership. I view it as evil because it is treating someone with a separate purpose (telos) as something to be directed to my own ends.

quote:

---

Why would ownership survive death?

---

It doesn't. Death is the mechanism that triggers the disposal of the property.

quote:

---

One of the major issues with your argument is your altered definition of ownership.

I don’t know what you mean by this. I’m questioning the definition of ownership.

---

You keep citing definitions that aren't anywhere close to the universally accepted definition.