- 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 6/22/26 at 2:33 pm to Antonio Moss
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:33 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
I would argue in order for something to be a social construct, it cannot be with the natural order of things - meaning not replicable across all populations.
I agree with this. Do tribes in Papua New Guinea and the Amazon Rainforest claim ownership of things? Indefinite possession that outlasts their immediate needs?
2
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:38 pm to deltadummy
quote:
You're a horrible troll. No effort whatsoever.
I'm not talking about The Law... I'm saying the book, Denial of Death, is trash.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:47 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Time is a social construct- 4cubbies, probably
Many, many scientists say time doesn't really exist. At least those in the quantum physics realm do.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:49 pm to 4cubbies
quote:In the Anglo-American common law tradition, there are lots of different types of ownership. In law school, it’s typically referred to a bundle of stick, with each stick representing some sort of property right. From what you’re describing, it seems like you’re thinking of ownership as owning something “in fee simple” which means you have all the sticks in your bundle. Even with this though, once you die, you don’t own anything. It passes to someone else. You can designate to whom it goes to an extent, but this is not absolute.
I’m referring to the concept of something belonging to someone indefinitely — even after death, through wills and estates.
quote:I think this is a helpful heuristic. Under most theories of law and rights, including natural law and natural rights (i.e., laws and rights we have apart from being in society), stealing is viewed as evil. If stealing is evil, then that means someone has an ownership claim to the item, which means ownership is not merely a construct in the most abstract sense.
If ownership is a social construct, I suppose stealing would be a social construct as well.
But you reject, consistent with your view, that stealing is intrinsically evil, which means you’re operating entirely outside the “law” that Bastiat is describing.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:52 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Many, many scientists say time doesn't really exist. At least those in the quantum physics realm do.
I bet they have deadlines for publishing papers.
Time is a God Construct, he created us to exist in time while He, of course, exists outside of time.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:55 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Time is a God Construct, he created us to exist in time while He, of course, exists outside of time
Don't you rain on my new excuse for not showing up on time.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:57 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
agree with this. Do tribes in Papua New Guinea and the Amazon Rainforest claim ownership of things? Indefinite possession that outlasts their immediate needs?
Or maybe, forgoing ownership is the social construct.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:58 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Don't you rain on my new excuse for not showing up on time.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:03 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
But you reject, consistent with your view, that stealing is intrinsically evil,
I think something can be a social construct and still be morally wrong. Theft may be wrong because it causes harm, deprivation, or violence, not because ownership is a metaphysical fact.
Your bundle of sticks example supports that ownership is a complicated system of rights and not some natural phenomenon.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did you get this scholarship on rights from Gobekli Tepe or Karahan Tepe ?
Both. I also studied abroad, with the San People, before finishing up my Masters of the universe degree at Mesopotamia University.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:37 pm to 4cubbies
quote:What makes harm, deprivation, or violence wrong? If your answer is because society says so, then this collapses into relativism and would make “wrongness” also a mere construct.
Theft may be wrong because it causes harm, deprivation, or violence
But if you view evil as something objective, then there must be a corresponding “good” that it is depriving. For example, lying is bad because it distorts the truth, and truth is a “good”. Murder is bad because it take a life and life is a “good”. Likewise, stealing is bad because it takes someone’s property and that property (the state of owning something) is a “good”.
So if stealing is bad because it deprives the “good”, taking from someone what is his, then there must be an objective reality to the notion of what “his” is. That doesn’t mean that each specific property law involved with the bundle of sticks is metaphysically perfect, but it does mean that thing those laws are trying to protect (ownership) isn’t merely a construct.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:41 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Theft may be wrong because it causes harm, deprivation, or violence, not because ownership is a metaphysical fact.
This is mind numbingly ridiculous.
If theft is wrong because it causes harm, deprivation, or violence, then what makes the deprivation wrongful in the first place? Deprivation of what? If ownership is merely a social construct, then all you’ve really said is that someone lost possession of something society temporarily assigned to them.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:46 pm to 4cubbies
Watching you tackle philosophical ideas is like watching kids make mud pies.
Neither has any connection to the form of the idea involved other than some shared vocabulary.
Neither has any connection to the form of the idea involved other than some shared vocabulary.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:47 pm to AllbyMyRelf
Very well said
Unfortunately it will be dismissed by OP because she came with a preconceived idea and started the thread looking for a few nuggets that might confirm her bias.
She didn’t come seeking greater understanding, she came looking for an excuse to use the government to take your property unencumbered by her conscious that it is stealing.
Because, well, if ownership is merely a social construct then society can just do away with that pesky notion, right?
Unfortunately it will be dismissed by OP because she came with a preconceived idea and started the thread looking for a few nuggets that might confirm her bias.
She didn’t come seeking greater understanding, she came looking for an excuse to use the government to take your property unencumbered by her conscious that it is stealing.
Because, well, if ownership is merely a social construct then society can just do away with that pesky notion, right?
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:47 pm to 4cubbies
OP is weapons-grade retarded.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:49 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
This is mind numbingly ridiculous. If theft is wrong because it causes harm, deprivation, or violence, then what makes the deprivation wrongful in the first place? Deprivation of what? If ownership is merely a social construct, then all you’ve really said is that someone lost possession of something society temporarily assigned to them.
She’s not looking for truth. She’s looking for a toehold to leverage power in order to take what isn’t hers. Commie filth.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:07 pm to 4cubbies
quote:You're avoiding his argument entirely.
Something can be made up and also real. Money is made up. It's also real. A dollar bill only has value because humans collectively agreed that it does. It has no value to dogs. Or ants. Or trees.
There are innumerable other examples just like this.
Bastiat's point isn't that ownership is a social convention we happen to honor like money - it's that plunder is identifiable as a specific act regardless of what any legal or social system says about it. The transfer of what someone produced, without consent, is the thing. That's not a made-up category. You can observe it, identify it, and experience it. Call it whatever you want — it still happened.
Your analogy is that money's "reality" is purely about function, it does what we agree it does, no more. But when we say someone's rights were violated, we don't mean a social convention was breached. We mean something was done to them, something that would have been wrong even if no one agreed it was. The claim has a different logical structure entirely.
If ownership is real the way money is, a collectively agreed upon functional concept, then a society that collectively agrees to redistribute your property has done nothing wrong to you. The agreement is the reality. There is no violation. No plunder. Just updated terms. Totally the opposite of Bastiat's assertion.
But if you want to accept it nonetheless, then you are not defending rights in any meaningful sense, you're defending majority will. And the question becomes: is there any act a sufficiently large group cannot legitimately do to you against your will?
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:08 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
If theft is wrong because it causes harm, deprivation, or violence, then what makes the deprivation wrongful in the first place?
A theory that I believe has a lot more weight than metaphysical basis is that we created these perceptions, values, laws, sins, etc. via societal trial and error, to influence people to avoid behaviors most likely to cause societal disruption. As society has developed, we've had more opportunities to send these concepts through various institutional machines that have changed the nature (think religion or philosophy) into what seems to be a higher level, "flowery" concept.
At the same time, as society develops, some of the earlier guidance isn't really necessary anymore (think shellfish restrictions from the Bible). This is where you get your traditional progress v. conservatism debates. Which of these behaviors were just part of the societal trial and error, and which are real [insert flowery concept label (sin, natural right, etc.)]
I reckon this is NOT what cubbies is arguing, mind you.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
At the same time, as society develops, some of the earlier guidance isn't really necessary anymore (think shellfish restrictions from the Bible).
There are actually decent reasons to avoid shellfish- This is actually a neat thing I've looked into, dietary restrictions in the Bible and a modern basis supporting such restrictions.
Concerning shellfish, they are filter feeders and have health risks, even properly prepared. Bacterial and viral concentrations, heavy metal bioaccumulation.
A lot of the Bible seems archaic, but there are sound reasons to most of those "rules"... now, I do realize I'm saying this on a board that enjoys their shellfish, so, fire away!
Sorry for the hijack- I am very interested in the "rules" of the Bible and modern scientific supports for many ancient guidelines.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A theory that I believe has a lot more weight than metaphysical basis is that we created these perceptions, values, laws, sins, etc. via societal trial and error, to influence people to avoid behaviors most likely to cause societal disruption. As society has developed, we've had more opportunities to send these concepts through various institutional machines that have changed the nature (think religion or philosophy) into what seems to be a higher level, "flowery" concept. At the same time, as society develops, some of the earlier guidance isn't really necessary anymore (think shellfish restrictions from the Bible). This is where you get your traditional progress v. conservatism debates. Which of these behaviors were just part of the societal trial and error, and which are real [insert flowery concept label (sin, natural right, etc.)] I reckon this is NOT what cubbies is arguing, mind you.
Seems like what you are saying is that morals are not just purity tests and that they have a practical competent which serves to strengthen the family/tribe/society.
This of course makes an abundance of sense.
Although I would say some of the tenants that deal with shellfish and pork serve a utility if you zoom out and take them to mean “be mindful of what you eat”. And maybe if the Bible were written today it might substitute “refined and overly processed foods” in lieu of “shellfish”.
Page 7 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News