- 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 3:29 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 6/23/26 at 3:29 pm to Robin Masters
quote:Cubs sometimes floats ideas based upon academic exposure, to sort thru counter arguments. I'm not certain that is what's happening in this thread, but it may not be fair to attribute the entirety to her personal ideology.
You people are dangerous and it's no wonder you are considered enemies of the republic undeserving of civil rights protection.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 3:56 pm
2
Posted on 6/23/26 at 3:34 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
so just norms that most would consider morals?
quote:
Power begat laws begat religion begat rights
There is a reason they became "morals" in my theory.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 3:42 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
There has to be a reason that basic tenants of “proper” behavior were created and carried forward for millennia or at least since writing was invented.
“Stealing” would not be a thing without property ownership and not stealing has been a basic rule since cuneiform writing. So it isn’t a leap to imagine it existed far before that as well.
I know you're coming in late so I'll copy and paste
quote: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On the flip side, some of these become outdated as societies advance.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 As society advances, we debate the relevancy of these outdated regulations, which is where you see the typical progressive-liberal/conservative-traditionalist split.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
Stealing cases society disruption
Power once determined who owned property, but this wasn't optimal.
Society then created laws do decrease societal friction from stealing, to decrease stealing (and the conflict it caused)
Society then molded religion with the state to further reinforce this. This is when stealing became a question of morality.
Then as society developed, with laws and religion as the backdrop (along with even more societal development from even more excess calories that gave us the man-hours to perform this knowledge economy) we pontificated and they became rights. Then we crafted flowery language about the rights and used centuries of man-hours discussing the concepts we made complex on purpose. etc etc
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Where is that anarcho-libertarian who used to post under the SFP moniker?
Stealing cases society disruption
Power once determined who owned property, but this wasn't optimal.
Society then created laws ...
Society then molded religion with the state to further reinforce ...
Then as society developed, with laws and religion ...
j/k This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:07 pm to NC_Tigah
Not every accusation is even worth a response. I have no idea why he is berating me for being a communist. I have no clue why he thinks I advocate for state ownership of property and industry. I am certain he is unable to articulate why he says that I am or have argued for that. His post is purely emotional drivel because he is seemingly desperate for one more person to blindly hate.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:13 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
No. I am just following your logic.
My logic would not equate a child with a parcel of land or a diamond ring.
quote:There are already laws around this, I'm sure. I doubt I can will my 9-year-old and 7-year-old to my 20-month-old's guardianship. I doubt that I can will any of my children to the care of our housecat.
who is to say that the children's guardianship should pass to those whom the parents deemed best suited to raise them?
quote:I am questioning the premise of posthumous disposal, not suggesting what should or should not happen in any specific instance.
Likewise in your model, parents who sacrificed to put money in 529s or custodial accounts, specifically for the well-being of those children, would not have that money passed on for the children's well-being, as they had clearly intended.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:17 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Not every accusation is even worth a response. I have no idea why he is berating me for being a communist. I have no clue why he thinks I advocate for state ownership of property and industry. I am certain he is unable to articulate why he says that I am or have argued for that. His post is purely emotional drivel because he is seemingly desperate for one more person to blindly hate.
Of course you are! Who else would take your possessions when you die if not the heirs? It would be The State.
And wow, some people have a negative reaction to communist propaganda, go figure?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:17 pm to 4cubbies
I'm not an expert on Anthropology, Archaeology, or Developmental psychology so I asked Claude:
Then I plugged that into ChatGPT and asked for it's assessment. Here was it's bottom line:
quote:
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.
Then I plugged that into ChatGPT and asked for it's assessment. Here was it's bottom line:
quote:
If you bracket off modern legal regimes and focus only on whether humans in non-state societies recognized socially enforced claims over personal objects, then the statement is mostly strong and defensible.
“Detailed studies … consistently document personal ownership of tools, weapons, and clothing.” - That is true.
And:
“Violation of those informal claims produces recognizable social responses.” - Also true and important. Social enforcement is enough to establish a norm of possession or ownership even absent formal institutions.
And:
“No ethnographic record describes a society where individuals had no personal possessions whatsoever.” - That is, as far as anthropology knows, basically correct.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Because they represent not a dead person's wishes, but the wishes of a living being that preceded death or disability.
The person is gone, though. When my coworkers leave the office, I turn the thermostat up. I am defying their wishes for a colder office, but they aren't here anymore so their wishes are moot. They are no longer impacted by the temperature in the office. Is that morally wrong?
The consequences of someone's bank account disappear for them once they are dead.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Where is that anarcho-libertarian who used to post under the SFP moniker?
There's nothing non-libertarian about that stance. Small-L, at least.
I was always against the ancaps, for the record.
And the reason why was power. I used to call it the Nino Brown problem. Ancaps are the far end of this:
quote:
Then we crafted flowery language about the rights and used centuries of man-hours discussing the concepts we made complex on purpose. etc etc
They've gotten so far in the clouds of the flowery language that they've removed themselves from the reality of life
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Cubs sometimes floats ideas based upon academic exposure, to sort thru counter arguments. I'm not certain that is what's happening in this thread, but it may not be fair to attribute the entirety to her personal ideology.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:21 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
“No ethnographic record describes a society where individuals had no personal possessions whatsoever.” - That is, as far as anthropology knows, basically correct.
Called it
quote:
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 4:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The devil's in the details ... one libertarian to another
There's nothing non-libertarian about that stance.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 4:41 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Your logic neither relates to the child nor parcel of land, nor a diamond ring. Your logic relates to the "wishes of dead people."
My logic would not equate a child with a parcel of land or a diamond ring.
If, in your estimation, a dead person can hold no preference, they can hold no preference. Simple really. That's why I question your position.
Again, what would your solution be?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 5:06 pm to Robin Masters
quote:I get it.
Cubs sometimes floats ideas based upon academic exposure, to sort thru counter arguments. I'm not certain that is what's happening in this thread, but it may not be fair to attribute the entirety to her personal ideology.
---
But the contention is a compliment, really.
TD is a think-tank forum, effectively countering PhD academic "truths." Conservatively, 1/3rd of the posters here would literally eat a lib academic alive on political topics in his/her own classroom.
In her pursuits, IMO, Cubs benefits from the board's contrarianism to liberal academics.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 5:07 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I guess this is a fair distinction. And as uncomfortable as it is, that would be true.
Your logic neither relates to the child nor parcel of land, nor a diamond ring. Your logic relates to the "wishes of dead people."
If, in your estimation, a dead person can hold no preference, they can hold no preference. Simple really. That's why I question your position.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 5:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In her pursuits, IMO, Cubs benefits from the board's contrarianism to liberal academics.
I seek them out. Most of the people in my circles are like-minded. I can anticipate their responses to questions like this. I want to hear from people who think differently than I do.
I also haven’t found the right opening for “so where do you think the concept of private property originated?” At the ballpark or at a kid’s birthday party.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 6/23/26 at 5:37 pm to LSUnKaty
I understand possession to fulfill an immediate need. Being buried with something doesn’t violate that principle because the living possibly believed the deceased would need the possessions in death.
Long-lasting possession enduring beyond one’s immediate or foreseeable need makes less sense.
The evidence cited supports the existence of
“Mine.”
It doesn’t necessarily prove the existence
“Mine forever.”
Or
“Mine after death.”
Or
“Mine even if I’m not using it.”
Or
“Mine because my dead grandfather said so before he died.”
Long-lasting possession enduring beyond one’s immediate or foreseeable need makes less sense.
The evidence cited supports the existence of
“Mine.”
It doesn’t necessarily prove the existence
“Mine forever.”
Or
“Mine after death.”
Or
“Mine even if I’m not using it.”
Or
“Mine because my dead grandfather said so before he died.”
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 6/23/26 at 5:42 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Of course you are! Who else would take your possessions when you die if not the heirs? It would be The State.
I don’t care. I’m not concerned with that in this thought exercise.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 5:53 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
don’t care. I’m not concerned with that in this thought exercise.
It’s the most important part of your point of contention. Because if you claim my property is not mine the only way to prove it is to demonstrate that it belongs to someone else.
The logical assumption would be if I cannot own it then certainly another individual cannot own it. The only other option would be to give it to the collective, The State.
Or destroy it.
This seemed like the box you were attempting to corral us into with your sophistry.
Page 17 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News