- 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 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not quite - but i guess it depends on what you mean by society (or the absence of society to be precise).
It sounds like you're describing man in society.
I do not see how property rights would be an issue for Robinson Crusoe on a desert island. There's no society there, but he would still need to plan, produce, and store for the future. He just would not need to deal with the possibility that someone else might decide to take everything he produced. So, he would have no need for property rights enforcement per se when he is alone, but the moment Friday arrives that changes. What society adds is not the underlying claim but the problem of enforcement.
If you mean a state of existence before formal collective or governing arrangements, I would say property rights would then be crucial. Even in a pre-social state, a person still needs to plan, produce, and build on what they've made in order to survive, if nothing more complex than holding onto the tools they made, having foregone other activities to make them.
So, in my view, The right precedes the institution that codifies it. Society makes the need for enforcement visible. It doesn't create the underlying claim.
0
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:22 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:As a matter of fact, it does not own itself. So that raises another question—if it does have this innate understanding, what happens if that understanding is wrong?
This sounds like you are saying your dog does not have an innate understanding that it owns itself. If so, I would argue that is up for debate.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:25 pm to stuntman
quote:
Yep, property is foundational to survival.
I guess this is why posthumous property dispensation seems counterintuitive to me.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:28 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I guess this is why posthumous property dispensation seems counterintuitive to me.
You don't see the inherent conflict in dividing that property *ETA: without clear rules, and the societal friction it could cause?
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:28 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
The belief held by these canon lawyers was that the chief end of law was to promote the good and restrain evil. So when creating or examining existing laws on inheritance, they likely asked themselves, how does this promote the good and restrain the evil.
Socially constructed.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You don't see the inherent conflict in dividing that property and the societal friction it could cause?
Of course. But that reinforces my claim (or thought?) that property rights are a social construct, not some universal objective fact or natural right.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:32 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
But that reinforces my claim (or thought?) that property rights are a social construct,
Thanks for confirming that you're a true believer socialist (not that there was much doubt).
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:32 pm to 4cubbies
quote:In the natural law tradition, we distinguish between the positive law and the natural law. The positive law is man-made; it doesn’t have to be the same across society to be moral. A good example would be traffic law. We drive on the right side, but the Brits drive on the left side. Neither one is intrinsically better, but they both conform with the natural law in promoting the good, which is order.
Socially constructed.
So yes, the inheritance laws are positive law, which are not in themselves intrinsically moral, but the conform (supposedly) to the natural law in promoting the good, which is not a construct.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:33 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Of course. But that reinforces my claim (or thought?) that property rights are a social construct
I'm not talking about property, generally, just why we have rules for estates/successions.
But yes, it's not divine.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:35 pm to LSUnKaty
Man didn't or can't exist or survive without private property or property rights?
We know that's not true.
We know that's not true.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But yes, it's not divine.
It seems very ego-driven.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:38 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Man didn't or can't exist or survive without private property or property rights?
We know that's not true.
While correct private property rights are one of the things that make our modern capitalist society as successful as it is
It's not without flaws but it's by comparison very successful
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:39 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
It seems very ego-driven.
It's not. I explained the rationality behind it.
In addition to the order and decrease in conflict, there's an evolutionary component with how we see our families (who get I imagine 99% of inherited wealth historically)
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:40 pm to Red Stick Rambler
quote:
Thanks for confirming that you're a true believer socialist (not that there was much doubt).
Is democracy not a social construct? Money? Capitalism?
Something can be legitimate and still be a social construct.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:41 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:Are you sure about that?
As a matter of fact, it does not own itself.
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?
Dogs have a clear sense of agency and a clear orientation toward the future, they signal wants, hide food for later, and anticipate consequences. If that doesn't constitute some innate sense of 'this is mine, including my own body,' it's hard to know what would. The fact that someone paid a breeder for the dog doesn't do away with that.
Which is precisely the point. The purchased slave and the purchased dog both have an inner claim that the transaction doesn't touch. Whether you think that claim rises to the level of full self-ownership or something less, self-ownership can't simply be dismissed by pointing to the bill of sale.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not. I explained the rationality behind it.
You've explained the rationale for society's acceptance and enforcement of property rights/succession.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:42 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Man didn't or can't exist or survive without private property or property rights?
Man can, humanity can’t. Of course you wouldn’t be able to see the forest for the trees.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:44 pm to LSUnKaty
Yes I’m sure. I own my dog.
If I don’t own my dog and instead there’s some secret inner idea of ownership that’s completely different than any other idea of ownership, and seemingly unknowable by anyone else, then ultimately it doesn’t mean much.
If I don’t own my dog and instead there’s some secret inner idea of ownership that’s completely different than any other idea of ownership, and seemingly unknowable by anyone else, then ultimately it doesn’t mean much.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:45 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
and instead there’s some secret inner idea of ownership that’s completely different than any other idea of ownership, and seemingly unknowable by anyone else, then ultimately it doesn’t mean much.
You're describing the problem with the concept of natural rights
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
I’m not, because as you mentioned earlier, we see evidence of natural law across multiple societies across multiple times.
Page 13 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News