- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the closest societies we have to this life are much more communal and egalitarian and not as focused on things like property
Without knowing which societies you’re referring to, I think it’s safe to assume that while this may be true of the common folk, property has been owned and controlled by kings, rulers, tyrants, emperors, etc. for a long time. Commoners were forced to live communal lives to survive as their work product was owned by these individuals.
I will concede that our success and ability to accumulate wealth has led to an ability to accumulate more “stuff” but that beats the alternative IMO of having your work product owned by the crown.
Not sure if this is what you’re getting at as I’m jumping in late.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 1:28 pm
2
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:27 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
I will concede that our success and ability to accumulate wealth has led to an ability to accumulate more wealth”stuff” but that beats the alternative IMO of having your work product owned by the crown.
Sometimes I wonder. A lot of those people had months off a year.
How liberated are you really if you have to work all year just to survive?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:28 pm to Powerman
quote:
Sometimes I wonder. A lot of those people had months off a year.
How liberated are you really if you have to work all year just to survive?
completely different societal structure than nowadays. They needed those days so the farmers own crops wouldn't die-off and then the kings would have no servants to Lord over
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:29 pm to 4cubbies
quote:The right of disposal isn't exercised after death, it's exercised before it, in the form of a will. Death is the execution date, not the moment of decision.
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.
The person who writes a will is alive, rational, and exercising ownership in exactly the way your framework describes. The fact that the transfer completes after death does not change that.
You might want to say "why should the living be bound by the wishes of the dead?" But that misframes it. The question isn't whether the dead can obligate the living. It's whether the living person's prior disposition of their own property should be honored. We're not obeying the dead. We're completing a transfer the living person initiated.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:29 pm to 4cubbies
In instances where there is no will, I get your point completely. When there is a will, that agreement is made when they are still alive, so it's just a voluntary trade/charity agreement they make at that time. It just activates upon their death.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:31 pm to Powerman
quote:
How liberated are you really if you have to work all year just to survive?
I get where you’re coming from but we are far from just “surviving” based on historic norms. We live our lives and work to meet whatever personal quality of life we want.
This reminds me of Lawrence from Office Space.
"You don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin. He's broke and he don't do shite."
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:33 pm to SquatchDawg
Yeah I generally agree. Just throwing out the philosophical portion of it.
Sometimes I like to remind myself of how good modern life is. I like to ask people a question. Would you rather live in a one bedroom apartment today or be the richest person in the world in the 1700s. Personally I'd rather live in a one bedroom apartment today for the air conditioning alone.
Sometimes I like to remind myself of how good modern life is. I like to ask people a question. Would you rather live in a one bedroom apartment today or be the richest person in the world in the 1700s. Personally I'd rather live in a one bedroom apartment today for the air conditioning alone.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:33 pm to stuntman
quote:
In instances where there is no will, I get your point completely.
Except that the state creates of a system of disposal for the deceased to the heirs' benefit.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:37 pm to Antonio Moss
Yep. But the question here is about the foundations of property rights and how inheritances can possibly jive w the Natural Law.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I answered that in my post.
The 200-300 thousand years prior to society developing about 6-12k years ago
quote:We know from anthropology, archaeology, and developmental psychology.
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.
From Claude
quote:Your claim that pre-modern humans were more communal and egalitarian may be true, but communal use of land and shared resources coexisted with individual ownership of personal items.
Anthropology and ethnography give the most direct evidence. Detailed studies of contemporary hunter-gatherer societies — the !Kung San, the Hadza, Australian Aboriginal groups — consistently document personal ownership of tools, weapons, and clothing. These aren't inferences; they're observed and recorded. Individuals make, use, and are buried with personal possessions. Violation of those informal claims produces recognizable social responses — conflict, restitution, ostracism.
Archaeology supports it too. Grave goods are among the oldest and most consistent findings in the human record — individuals buried with their tools, ornaments, and weapons, distinguished from others. That practice presupposes a concept of personal ownership sufficiently shared that the community enacts it in burial ritual.
Developmental psychology adds another angle: children develop a sense of "mine" before they can speak, well before any legal or cultural instruction takes hold. The concept appears to be part of the cognitive architecture, not a cultural imposition.
No ethnographic record describes a society where individuals had no personal possessions whatsoever.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:39 pm to stuntman
Everyone has a will. The question is whether they made it themselves or if they’re using the default set forth by legislators in the intestacy code.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:40 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:We don't know that hunter-gatherers conceived of property in the same way Bastiat, Locke, or modern liberals do.
Huh? How do we know that is not true? When did man ever survive without property rights?
quote:How do you know those concepts are equivalent to the our (and Bastiat's) conception of property rights? I'm sure possession existed, but I wonder about the norms around long-term possession, or possession outside of one's immediate or foreseeable need for an object were like.
Certainly you are not advocating for a return to hunter-gatherer society. 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.
quote:I've picked up on that. People who are desperate to label a person asking a question in an obvious attempt to completely disregard or ignore the question don't strike me as worthy of engagement. Why even enter the thread if the intended response to every question is "you're a communist/socialist/liberal/democrat/bad bad bad"?
Others in this thread seem to think you are trying to covertly advocate for communism.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:41 pm to AllbyMyRelf
I'm talking in purely philosophical terms, not what politicians have created.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:43 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
kings, rulers, tyrants, emperors, etc.
I'm not talking about human groupings in this advanced of society, to be clear. Just to give one somewhat modern example...you described the Mongol Empire under the Khans, while I was talking about the proto-civilizations prior to even the nomadic steppe people who ultimately were brought into that empire.
The more we develop as society, the stronger the idea of private property ownership becomes.
Not to get too communist, but their distinction in private property and personal property is probably also applicable for this conversation. I think the examples being cited are primarily what would fall into personal property and not private property.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:44 pm to stuntman
Yes, but philosophically speaking, wills are pretty much universally known, and the intestacy laws are public and available. So can we not just deem that people that die without their own will knowingly accept the default?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Society wanting to create customs that decrease the chances of conflict and negative outcomes, using trial and error.
But, as you've noted, certain moral norms have transcended time and place. That points to some unifying source. This isn't an argument for or attempt at conversion btw.
I guess I can see an argument for the source being "disruption avoidance."
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:46 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
But, as you've noted, certain moral norms have transcended time and place
Did I call them moral?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:48 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
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?
I am pointing out that identifying something as a social construct isn't an appeal to socialism or communism.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
so just norms that most would consider morals?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:50 pm to AllbyMyRelf
Good question. Don't know.
I can think of instances where I'd say "of course they accept the default", then on the other, there are certainly people out there who hate their kids.
I think most would be aware of how the "laws work", but most probably never question the principles of it Kinda like taxation.
I can think of instances where I'd say "of course they accept the default", then on the other, there are certainly people out there who hate their kids.
I think most would be aware of how the "laws work", but most probably never question the principles of it Kinda like taxation.
Page 15 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News