- 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 4:31 pm to UtahCajun
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:31 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Many, many scientists say time doesn't really exist. At least those in the quantum physics realm do.
Gen Z says they suffer from time blindness
Some black people claim that time is racist
Time to end time!
1
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:41 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
now, I do realize I'm saying this on a board that enjoys their shellfish, so, fire away!
I don't like shellfish so no worries.
But that still doesn't change the point. All food has risks, and what made shellfish so worrisome at the time isn't as present today. You can go with pork if you'd like instead. Or circumcision.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can go with pork if you'd like instead.
Again, there's good reasons to avoid that too... they are nature's garbage disposals. I can list reasons, but really, being garbage disposals covers it.
Circumcision in the Bible isn't what has been performed on American infants in the hospital nursery for decades. But, to be fair, in high risk societies, circumcision is supposedly beneficial.
There is science that backs up a great lot of these archaic rules.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:49 pm to stout
quote:
Some black people claim that time is racist
I've heard certain cultures literally have no conceptual understanding of time. No past, no future, just the right now til about five minutes from now.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:09 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
What makes harm, deprivation, or violence wrong?
They cause universally agreed upon harm, potentially threatening or taking someone else’s life. No one claims those are good or beneficial for someone. I would argue right to exist without having one’s life threatened or endangered is a natural right, if any exist.
quote:This is what I’m questioning. Is there an objective reality to indefinite or prolonged possession?
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.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:15 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
They cause universally agreed upon harm, potentially threatening or taking someone else’s life.
You just smuggled natural rights back into the discussion.
If there is a natural right to life, then the question becomes why stop there?
Your life doesn’t sustain itself in a vacuum. To live, you must act. To act, you must control your labor. To keep the fruits of your labor, you must have property.
Property isn’t a separate right from life; it’s an extension of it.
If I spend a month growing food and someone takes it, they haven’t merely taken vegetables. They’ve taken the product of a month of my life. Property is stored labor.
That’s exactly why Bastiat links life, liberty, and property together. If life is a natural right but the products of your life are not, then your right to life becomes meaningless because others may simply appropriate everything required to sustain it.
Furthermore, if there’s a natural right to life but no natural right to the fruits of your labor, then your right to life is just a right to work for whoever is strongest.
This post was edited on 6/22/26 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:16 pm to 4cubbies
quote:You’re begging the question here. Are they wrong because we agree they’re wrong, or do we agree they’re wrong because they are wrong?
They cause universally agreed upon harm, potentially threatening or taking someone else’s life.
quote:Yes
Is there an objective reality to indefinite or prolonged possession?
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:18 pm to 4cubbies
Didn’t read a word, so you posted, immediately downvoted.
TYFYS
TYFYS
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In terms of society?
Power begat laws begat religion begat rights
If there is not God, then we are just chemicals aligning in more effective means
If there is a God, then yes the Power of God begat natural laws, and people followed those laws leading to expected rights.
quote:All occurred long before agriculture.
but agriculture allowed all of this to occur.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:33 pm to Penrod
Allah is the Islamic God, not the Christian one. Nice deflection though.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:35 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I would argue right to exist without having one’s life threatened or endangered is a natural right, if any exist.
Your thoughts concerning little girls being molested by Islamic rape gangs doesn’t compute with your definition above.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:38 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
One of my favorite book(let)s... .... can't wait to see how you muck this up.
lol. I read it as a high school freshman. Good stuff.
This thread got off to an inauspicious start….
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:41 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
That book is trash.
Have you read it? Why do you say it is trash?
Looks interesting but a lot of thought and opinions interest me... Until they don't.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:42 pm to LSUnKaty
Admittedly, I haven’t finished the essay yet to be fluent in his argument.
I haven’t gotten to the plunder part yet.
I haven’t gotten to the plunder part yet.
quote:does someone still have claims to something they produced after death through wills, trusts and estates? I’m not suggesting that the government or someone else should get it. I’m not suggesting an alternative to wills or estates. I’m questioning whether those categories of prolonged or indefinite possession are natural or intuitive. I’m discussing the nature of ownership, not proposing a policy.
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.
quote:I used that analogy to demonstrate social constructs can still be real.
Your analogy is that money's "reality" is purely about function, it does what we agree it does, no more.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:49 pm to LCA131
quote:
Have you read it? Why do you say it is trash?
I looked it up and the criticisms of it. I don't think I'll be reading it.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:50 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
There are actually decent reasons to avoid shellfish-
You take that back. Right now!
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:52 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Allah is the Islamic God, not the Christian one. Nice deflection though
Allah is indeed the god of many Christians. Nice way to say you are ignorant though.
This post was edited on 6/22/26 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:55 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
You take that back. Right now!
I knew that was coming!
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:56 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Admittedly, I haven’t finished the essay yet to be fluent in his argument.
I stand by original statement.
OP is weapons-grade retarded ... or a master class troll.
Still believe the former.
This post was edited on 6/22/26 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:56 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Allah is the Islamic God, not the Christian one
That is false. “Allah” is a word with a meaning, and that meaning is the same as “God”. Christians, who speak Arabic, call their diety “Allah”.
I don’t understand your struggle with this. It’s like how in English we say “dog”, but in Spanish they say “perro”. There are other words for “God” in other languages.
Apparently “Allah” and “God” are not perfectly translatable, because “God” can be made plural, while “Allah” is a proper name like “Jesus”.
Page 8 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News