Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

So now we will have to go through the trouble of defining what is a legal institution, and what does being a legal institution entail. A legal institution is not a state. It is, put vaguely, an institution capable of defining or exercising law and justice, but that doesn't really help us. What does it take for someone, or something, to be a legal institution? If we are to include Weberian statelessness, ie the state of nature (which we ought to), then it would make absolutely no sense for only states to be considered legal institutions (because, eg polycentric law). A state enforces legal practices or legal institutions. I mean, from what I can conclude here, every single individual capable of signing a contract (either verbally or textually) is a legal institution, because they can set the legal parameters between parties in a contract, and the enforcement of these contracts are, in a state of nature, wholly up to them.

Thus, we can define a legal institution as any single individual, which makes ownership, property, and their enforcements and definitions thereof, up to them.

A legal institution is an institution that can make you follow its laws. One person could declare bananas illegal, and no one would care. If the United States declares bananas illegal within its borders, then anyone caught with bananas would be shot on sight. (or fined, whatever). If the United States declares bananas illegal anywhere, but the UK declares "bullshit, we love bananas", they'll fight a war and whoever wins gets to make laws for the other guys.

It's simplified, but that's generally how it works.

I'm afraid that that is wrong. What you are defining is a state-- an institution that has the monopoly on the enforcement of all contracts in a given geographical area. A state enforces the law, and in most or nearly-all cases the state has a judiciary branch (a legal institution), but not all legal institutions are states. Look at it this way: one person could declare bananas illegal on their territory (in a stateless world, say), and anyone entering their property would be shot on sight (or fined, whatever).

[Arkolon]

I'd like to debate your concept of ownership versus mine, then, so we can at least get somewhere.

I recognize mine as a cultural phenomenon and thus not objective.

That doesn't answer my question, though. What is your concept of ownership?

Those would be logically inconsistent,

so? Cultural phenomenon tend to be.

Which would make it illegitimate, a waste of time, and definitely not something to base your ethical system on. Again, natural law is not necessarily an observation; it is a basis for legitimacy deduced from truths, which make the conclusion, the very same way, true.

depending upon which axioms their concepts of ownership and property are based. Not to mention that I doubt the women, children, or slaves would see this as a fair system,

which has no bearing on whether it existed.

... which has no bearing on whether or not it was legitimate or ethical?

and would thus be an illegitimate one at that.

based on your moral system, based on theirs it was completely legitimate.

On what grounds? I understand you think it's cool to dismiss everything that assumes a universal, social truth-- justifying rape, murder, pillaging-- but does that justify those ethical systems. Wouldn't that be a circular argument: "the reason my ethical system is justified is because its conclusions are justified"; "the reason my ethical system that justifies rape is justified is because I justify rape". Thus making the ethical system logically inconsistent, as close as to "wrong" as we can get, and to be casually dismissed.

There are only two ways to approach the mind-body problem: monism (M), or dualism (D),

well there are more, but go on.

Hmm?

and there is only a mind-body problem in that which exists (X; being alive). D + X = a conclusion, which in our case is self-ownership. Dualism, as we both know, is incorrect since the technological advancement in neurology. However, it is very possible, and this thread is dedicated to, replacing D with M, so that M + X = the very same conclusion. Monism, as we both agree, is not incorrect, or at least far less so than dualism. Both yield the same conclusion, which, functionally, makes D = M-- which should remind you of Y' = Y.

except you haven't show they reach the same conclusion, merely stated it.

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.
3. If we think, then we have that which is capable of thought (the mind).
4. if we have that which is capable of thought, then it must be supported by another corporeal mechanism (the body).
5. The relative matter of that which is capable of thought is the corporeal mechanism.
6. If there is no corporeal mechanism, then we are not capable of thought (therefore we are not).
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.
8. The corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us.
9. If the corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us, we own our bodies.
10. Owning something is owning the rights to something, which effectively makes that something an extension of our own rights and of ourselves.
11. Therefore, we own ourselves.

Cut out what needs to be cut out for the monist's argument, and there you go.

Self-ownership is the conclusion. Figuratively speaking, the "=" in Y + X = self-ownership is what is at debate.

Y is either dualism or monism, which are (functionally) interchangeable for our purposes.

both unknowns, Ah I see the problem, by unknown I mean we do not know if the value we are using for the variable is correct, we have no truth value for either of them. Sorry switched to math language.

The position of Y can only be Y or Y'. I don't see what you're trying to say. In fact, I feel like you're avoiding the actual point.

I left out the whole working out part (the axiomatic lists...) in favour of a more brief post, but I have given my working out many times before.

yes and your workings can be summed up as A is true, B is true, then a miracle happens, conclusion self ownership.
there is a huge baseless logical leap right in the middle of it. I even pointed it out in those posts.

So, you haven't been reading?

Y' or Y + 1 = Y + 1, where Y' = Y. It really isn't that complicated. The purpose of Y is to show that there is more than just mind-body dualism.

so you missed the point of my statement entirely, no matter which Y you use it does not lead to self ownership.

I'm going to ask why not, and you're going to reply with something about a burden of proof, and then I'm going to stare at my computer screen and wonder if we really have to go through all of this again. I've given all of my justifications, and yet you still claim that I am wrong with adamant overconfidence, and when I ask why it is that I am wrong you will regurgitate a logical fallacy that only applies here because you do not have an answer for yourself. You can only say no, and that is all you have said in this thread so far. Just "no". And "no" doesn't have a whole lot of substance attached to it.

"Functionally", yes, it is. You're either conscious or you're not.

No, it is a continuum, but this is a tangent for a different thread.

Doesn't change my argument in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, they do. I have shown this many times.

repeating a logical leap is not explaining it.

Repeating is necessary, apparently, when you weren't understood the first seven times.

[Arkolon]

So now we will have to go through the trouble of defining what is a legal institution, and what does being a legal institution entail. A legal institution is not a state. It is, put vaguely, an institution capable of defining or exercising law and justice, but that doesn't really help us. What does it take for someone, or something, to be a legal institution? If we are to include Weberian statelessness, ie the state of nature (which we ought to), then it would make absolutely no sense for only states to be considered legal institutions (because, eg polycentric law). A state enforces legal practices or legal institutions. I mean, from what I can conclude here, every single individual capable of signing a contract (either verbally or textually) is a legal institution, because they can set the legal parameters between parties in a contract, and the enforcement of these contracts are, in a state of nature, wholly up to them.

Thus, we can define a legal institution as any single individual, which makes ownership, property, and their enforcements and definitions thereof, up to them.

No, law is socially defined. Just because you can sign a contract doesn't mean you are a legal institution. It takes at least another person to to create the contract.

Today I learned that just because you can create law doesn't make you an entity that can create law, courtesy of Conscentia.

Additionally, your post implies that all contracts are legal. They aren't.

You'd have to define legal for me again, which is what we're in the process of doing right now.

[Arkolon]

The human conscience serves to benefit our survival, so the human conscience makes complete sense [sic]?

I said "the existence of the human conscience". You never heard of natural selection?

Point to me where that was, please?

You are also mistaken about my assumptions. I assume nothing. Prescriptive ethics is based on the idea that there is such a thing as moral truth. I reject that baseless assertion.

There is such a thing as a truth. In fact, there are many truths. From these truths, you base your ethics. That is the point of living in a community, and with other people. It is the point in having an ethical basis.

What truth? There is no objective standard to which human action/character should conform.[/quote]
Yes, and it's the harm principle.

So who was it?

Who was what?

Whomever it was that converted you to the ironically-religious dogma of the nil.

[Conscentia]

No, law is socially defined. Just because you can sign a contract doesn't mean you are a legal institution. It takes at least another person to to create the contract.

Today I learned that just because you can create law doesn't make you an entity that can create law, courtesy of Conscentia.

Contract =/= law.

Additionally, your post implies that all contracts are legal. They aren't.

You'd have to define legal for me again, which is what we're in the process of doing right now.

Legal: permitted by a legal code.
A legal code is an explicit, objectified, and socially defined set of rules.
A society may adopt a single set of laws, as is the case with a state, or several overlapping legal codes, as is the case with polycentric laws.
A legal code is formalised by a legal institution.

We're trying to determine what can and cannot be a legal institution.

[Conscentia]

I said "the existence of the human conscience". You never heard of natural selection?

Point to me where that was, please?

You quoted it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=310179&p=21757529#p21757529

What truth? There is no objective standard to which human action/character should conform.

Yes, and it's the harm principle.

There is no inherent moral value to not doing harm. The only reasons to avoiding doing harm is compassion or self-preservation (avoid revenge).

Who was what?

Whomever it was that converted you to the ironically-religious dogma of the nil.

No-one did. I independently reached the conclusion, then found out that the vocabulary describing my position was pre-existing.
It's not religious. It's not a dogma.

[Sociobiology]

I recognize mine as a cultural phenomenon and thus not objective.

That doesn't answer my question, though. What is your concept of ownership?

you own what your society says you own.

so? Cultural phenomenon tend to be.

Which would make it illegitimate, a waste of time, and definitely not something to base your ethical system on.

to you, its not as if ethical systems are based on logic to begin with.

Again, natural law is not necessarily an observation; it is a basis for legitimacy deduced from truths, which make the conclusion, the very same way, true.

so it true because your argument doesn't work otherwise.

which has no bearing on whether it existed.

... which has no bearing on whether or not it was legitimate or ethical?

not quite, if it existed then someone considered it legitimate or ethical.

based on your moral system, based on theirs it was completely legitimate.

On what grounds? I understand you think it's cool to dismiss everything that assumes a universal, social truth

I dismiss it because it is unfounded, its no different than dismissing an argument against witchcraft, because witchcraft doesn't exist.

-- justifying rape, murder, pillaging--

no it doesn't, and that you think it does is part of your problem.

but does that justify those ethical systems.

never claimed it did, justification is itself subjective

well there are more, but go on.

Hmm?

for example mysterianism and the three part system popular with some christian sects.

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.
3. If we think, then we have that which is capable of thought (the mind).
4. if we have that which is capable of thought, then it must be supported by another corporeal mechanism (the body).
5. The relative matter of that which is capable of thought is the corporeal mechanism.
6. If there is no corporeal mechanism, then we are not capable of thought (therefore we are not).
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.

and here would be the leap, 7 does not necessitate 8.

8. The corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us.

this does not follow from the previous, there is no reason for reliance to create ownership. You are assuming it, not demonstrating it.

The position of Y can only be Y or Y'.

see above.

yes and your workings can be summed up as A is true, B is true, then a miracle happens, conclusion self ownership.
there is a huge baseless logical leap right in the middle of it. I even pointed it out in those posts.

So, you haven't been reading?

I'm going to ask why not, and you're going to reply with something about a burden of proof, and then I'm going to stare at my computer screen and wonder if we really have to go through all of this again. I've given all of my justifications, and yet you still claim that I am wrong with adamant overconfidence, and when I ask why it is that I am wrong you will regurgitate a logical fallacy that only applies here because you do not have an answer for yourself. You can only say no, and that is all you have said in this thread so far. Just "no". And "no" doesn't have a whole lot of substance attached to it.

[/quote]
you assume the need for the body gives ownership, you have never shown why this is true, you just state it, you go through a long string showing we require the body, then conclude out of the blue that that means we own it, that is a completely unfounded assumption.

imagine if I went through a long string of logic justifying why bananas are yellow then follow that up with a statement that because it is yellow it means that bananas are not fruit, the the string of logic does not support this, it comes out of the blue, even if there is a logical reason for it to be true I have not shown it with the argument, it is begging the question.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'm afraid that that is wrong. What you are defining is a state-- an institution that has the monopoly on the enforcement of all contracts in a given geographical area. A state enforces the law, and in most or nearly-all cases the state has a judiciary branch (a legal institution), but not all legal institutions are states. Look at it this way: one person could declare bananas illegal on their territory (in a stateless world, say), and anyone entering their property would be shot on sight (or fined, whatever).

Can you have a state that doesn't make and enforce internal laws though? Is a law that has no effect on anyone still a law? I see no reason to divorce one concept from the other.

Also, there are laws other than contract law.

Edit: To clarify a bit, this is how one might tell a legal institution from some crackpot yelling on the street. Whether or not it can get people to go along with it, and whether or not it can do so against outside pressures.

[Donut section]

No, because I'm not property to be owned.

[Arkolon]

Today I learned that just because you can create law doesn't make you an entity that can create law, courtesy of Conscentia.

Contract =/= law.

All laws are contracts, though. You have vested all of your powers in the hands of the representatives you elect (whose power you nevertheless acquiesce to by participating in the democratic process), and they sign and create contracts between you, the government, the state, other parties, themselves, and so on, however they see fit. Say the government wants to impose a tax: the legislature uses my powers (which I have granted it by voting them in) to write a contract, which effectively means I acquiesce to whichever tax is imposed.

Your social contract is legitimised if it is actually tangible and the submitted exercise their positive rights to vote in an election. Else it is overriding property over the person.

Additionally, your post implies that all contracts are legal. They aren't.

You'd have to define legal for me again, which is what we're in the process of doing right now.

Legal: permitted by a legal code.
A legal code is an explicit, objectified, and socially defined set of rules.
A society may adopt a single set of laws, as is the case with a state, or several overlapping legal codes, as is the case with polycentric laws.
A legal code is formalised by a legal institution.[/quote]
If I say that every individual is a legal institution, and "legal" means legitimised by a legal institution, then of course every contract is legal. What's your point?

We're trying to determine what can and cannot be a legal institution.

And you say?

Do you want to build a sandcastle with all that sand or something?

[Empire of Narnia]

God owns my soul. The government owns my body.

[Arkolon]

Point to me where that was, please?

You quoted it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=310179&p=21757529#p21757529

That's the whole post, which is useless to us both here. Where in exactly what I quoted was that?

What truth? There is no objective standard to which human action/character should conform.

Yes, and it's the harm principle.

There is no inherent moral value to not doing harm. The only reasons to avoiding doing harm is compassion or self-preservation (avoid revenge).[/quote]
The harm principle doesn't magically appear, like, hey, this is what you guys have to do now, it's written in these scriptures (even if it is). The harm principle is logically deduced from basic facts of life, consciousness, belonging, and propertarian relationships. The reason you shouldn't take what isn't yours is because it isn't yours. There's no stone tablet appearing out of nowhere that says, hey, you guys shouldn't steal because I said so. We can observe life and society to determine what is mine and what isn't, and from that we can deduce what is to be taken as mine and what isn't to be taken as mine. It's not very difficult.

Whomever it was that converted you to the ironically-religious dogma of the nil.

No-one did. I independently reached the conclusion, then found out that the vocabulary describing my position was pre-existing.
It's not religious. It's not a dogma.

Yeah, look, I don't pretend to know a lot about biology or chemistry, and if I went to some science convention and did pretend that I was some sort of bio-aficionado I'd definitely embarrass myself, and I much prefer leaving the science-stuff to the science-guys.

Nihilism is blind apathy to the world around you. It's a waste of time.

[Arkolon]

That doesn't answer my question, though. What is your concept of ownership?

you own what your society says you own.

Who is "society"? Is she hot?

At which point does a group of people become a society? How many Facebook friends is that?

Which would make it illegitimate, a waste of time, and definitely not something to base your ethical system on.

to you, its not as if ethical systems are based on logic to begin with.

Good ones are, and mine, thankfully, is.

Again, natural law is not necessarily an observation; it is a basis for legitimacy deduced from truths, which make the conclusion, the very same way, true.

so it true because your argument doesn't work otherwise.

What?

... which has no bearing on whether or not it was legitimate or ethical?

not quite, if it existed then someone considered it legitimate or ethical.

Then, on what grounds? All ethical systems can be challenged, and in every challenge there is a winner and a loser. The colour that I prefer is not a challenge. Political ideologies argued against one another are challenges, and there are systems that are far, far more practical than others. It depends on what you're measuring, and in our case, that is the case of measuring the validity of ethical systems, we would have to measure their logic and consistency thereof. All hail the tree-god because that's what a little bird told me in my sleep (and because I felt like it) is not a logical basis for a consistent ethical system. We are, and deductions from that, however, is.

-- justifying rape, murder, pillaging--

no it doesn't, and that you think it does is part of your problem.

What?

but does that justify those ethical systems.

never claimed it did, justification is itself subjective

Justification measured by logical consistency.

Hmm?

for example mysterianism and the three part system popular with some christian sects.

Hmm, alright. I don't think we, or anyone, should pay much attention to this, anyway.

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.
3. If we think, then we have that which is capable of thought (the mind).
4. if we have that which is capable of thought, then it must be supported by another corporeal mechanism (the body).
5. The relative matter of that which is capable of thought is the corporeal mechanism.
6. If there is no corporeal mechanism, then we are not capable of thought (therefore we are not).
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.

and here would be the leap, 7 does not necessitate 8.

8. The corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us.

this does not follow from the previous, there is no reason for reliance to create ownership. You are assuming it, not demonstrating it.

I don't know how else to put this. I have put this forward to so many people, some of them teachers, students of the subject, and others, and not one person has seen this as a problem. The point transition from 7 to 8 are consistent, and is definitely a logical progression. Either you're purposely missing the point, either I'm going to have to spell it out, again, to you.

1. The Master (M) is a self-aware person, but The Object (O) is not necessarily so.
2. M is only M if O.
3. If there is no O, then there can be no M.
4. The existence of M is dependent on the existence of O.
5. M owns O.

and

1. The Master (M) is a self-aware person, but The Object (O) is not necessarily so.
2. O is only O if it belongs to M.
3. If there is no M, there can be no O.
4. The existence of O is dependent on it belonging to M.
5. O cannot own M because O is already owned by M.

[Conscentia]

Contract =/= law.

All laws are contracts, though. [...]

Irrelevant.

Legal: permitted by a legal code.
A legal code is an explicit, objectified, and socially defined set of rules.
A society may adopt a single set of laws, as is the case with a state, or several overlapping legal codes, as is the case with polycentric laws.
A legal code is formalised by a legal institution.

If I say that every individual is a legal institution, and "legal" means legitimised by a legal institution, then of course every contract is legal. What's your point?

Why would you say that?

We're trying to determine what can and cannot be a legal institution.

And you say?

A legal institution can be any type of organized society, or a corporation thereof, concerned with the formalisation of law.

Do you want to build a sandcastle with all that sand or something?

Stop wasting straw.

[Twilight Imperium]

Who is "society"? Is she hot?

At which point does a group of people become a society? How many Facebook friends is that?

Autonomy. If you can make laws within your group (at least largely) unfettered by exterior group's laws and have a reasonable expectation of enforcing said laws, then you are a society in terms of lawmaking.

[Conscentia]

You quoted it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=310179&p=21757529#p21757529

That's the whole post, which is useless to us both here. Where in exactly what I quoted was that?

Seriously?
It's in the first line that I wrote of that post.

The harm principle doesn't magically appear, like, hey, this is what you guys have to do now, it's written in these scriptures (even if it is). The harm principle is logically deduced from basic facts of life, consciousness, belonging, and propertarian relationships. The reason you shouldn't take what isn't yours is because it isn't yours. There's no stone tablet appearing out of nowhere that says, hey, you guys shouldn't steal because I said so. We can observe life and society to determine what is mine and what isn't, and from that we can deduce what is to be taken as mine and what isn't to be taken as mine. It's not very difficult.

No. That doesn't follow at all. Generally one takes things that one does not possess, precisely because you do not already possess it and want to control the use/value of it. The only reason for not taking something that isn't mine is to avoid revenge, or out of compassion.

Yeah, look, I don't pretend to know a lot about biology or chemistry, and if I went to some science convention and did pretend that I was some sort of bio-aficionado I'd definitely embarrass myself, and I much prefer leaving the science-stuff to the science-guys.

Nihilism is blind apathy to the world around you. It's a waste of time.

That is not at all true. In-fact, I would argue that to not be a nihilist is to have one's vision clouded by artificial construct that obscure the reality of the world around oneself.

[Arkolon]

I'm afraid that that is wrong. What you are defining is a state-- an institution that has the monopoly on the enforcement of all contracts in a given geographical area. A state enforces the law, and in most or nearly-all cases the state has a judiciary branch (a legal institution), but not all legal institutions are states. Look at it this way: one person could declare bananas illegal on their territory (in a stateless world, say), and anyone entering their property would be shot on sight (or fined, whatever).

Can you have a state that doesn't make and enforce internal laws though? Is a law that has no effect on anyone still a law? I see no reason to divorce one concept from the other.

Also, there are laws other than contract law.

Edit: To clarify a bit, this is how one might tell a legal institution from some crackpot yelling on the street. Whether or not it can get people to go along with it, and whether or not it can do so against outside pressures.

Some crackpot yelling on the street can make deals, and can officialise conduct between himself and his close circles by writing up codes, contracts, and the like.

[Arkolon]

All laws are contracts, though. [...]

Irrelevant.

Casual.

Legal: permitted by a legal code.
A legal code is an explicit, objectified, and socially defined set of rules.
A society may adopt a single set of laws, as is the case with a state, or several overlapping legal codes, as is the case with polycentric laws.
A legal code is formalised by a legal institution.

If I say that every individual is a legal institution, and "legal" means legitimised by a legal institution, then of course every contract is legal. What's your point?

Why would you say that?[/quote]
Every person has the ability to, in a state of nature, write up their own laws because they are, in essence, self-governing because they own themselves. The state is a renouncement of these freedoms, or at least the vesting of power into some superior power (a legislative authority, a legal authority, a state, etc). Without a state, every individual is a legal institution. This division between "informal law" and "formal law" means absolutely nothing, and you seem to be the only one to see it. I take it it's on appearance: if it's between two crackpots it's informal, but if it's typed up by a secretary it's "formal" superior law? That's not very consistent, is it?

And you say?

A legal institution can be any type of organized society, or a corporation thereof, concerned with the formalisation of law.

Do you want to build a sandcastle with all that sand or something?

Stop wasting straw.

I don't see how this is a strawman, considering almost every argument you can come up with is a sorites.

[Arkolon]

That's the whole post, which is useless to us both here. Where in exactly what I quoted was that?

Seriously?
It's in the first line that I wrote of that post.

In the fragment of the post that I quoted-- which was nearer the bottom of the post, so if your word was in your first line and only in your first line then my point is proven.

The harm principle doesn't magically appear, like, hey, this is what you guys have to do now, it's written in these scriptures (even if it is). The harm principle is logically deduced from basic facts of life, consciousness, belonging, and propertarian relationships. The reason you shouldn't take what isn't yours is because it isn't yours. There's no stone tablet appearing out of nowhere that says, hey, you guys shouldn't steal because I said so. We can observe life and society to determine what is mine and what isn't, and from that we can deduce what is to be taken as mine and what isn't to be taken as mine. It's not very difficult.

No. That doesn't follow at all. Generally one takes things that one does not possess, precisely because you do not already possess it and want to control the use/value of it. The only reason for not taking something that isn't mine is to avoid revenge, or out of compassion.

Why would someone take revenge on you for taking something? If you took, say, their arm, or their leg, from them, why would they take revenge? It's not as if, gasp, their arm or leg is theirs, is it?But doesn't that mean...? And doesn't that mean...? Yes, yes it does.

That's just their body, though. What about things that aren't their body? Say, their property; their book. If I appropriate this book, why would they take revenge? It's theirs, then (which means that they own themselves, too, then), but what does ownership actually mean? Ownership is a right to certain property, and rights to property are an extension of the self (all rights are extensions of the self, which is necessary for self-ownership), so, really, the book (the ownership of the book) "is" (as in, is an extension of) themselves.

Yeah, look, I don't pretend to know a lot about biology or chemistry, and if I went to some science convention and did pretend that I was some sort of bio-aficionado I'd definitely embarrass myself, and I much prefer leaving the science-stuff to the science-guys.

Nihilism is blind apathy to the world around you. It's a waste of time.

That is not at all true. In-fact, I would argue that to not be a nihilist is to have one's vision clouded by artificial construct that obscure the reality of the world around oneself.

Exactly. It avoids all that which it calls "artificial", which is all that is socially constructed and not scientifically or mathematically provable. It is on par with solipsism for uselessness to philosophical progression as a society. Social constructs are real, whether you like it or not. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you sound like someone who's still in school or in university and relies on whatever their teacher says for the manual to life, but a step outside reveals just this much. You cannot avoid social constructs. You cannot dismiss social constructs. Social constructs are the world around you. Nihilism is purposely blinding oneself to society and its products.

I know, we all go through nihilist phases, which is usually more or less at the same time as that part in life where we hate our parents who are SO mean to us, but seriously, you're wasting your time, and you're going to be hugely disappointed if you ever apply for philosophy in whichever facility you currently frequent.

[Arkolon]

Who is "society"? Is she hot?

At which point does a group of people become a society? How many Facebook friends is that?

Autonomy. If you can make laws within your group (at least largely) unfettered by exterior group's laws and have a reasonable expectation of enforcing said laws, then you are a society in terms of lawmaking.

Societies aren't law-crafting organisms. A society cannot make laws. Legal institutions make laws.

[Conscentia]

Why would you say that?

Every person has the ability to, in a state of nature, write up their own laws because they are, in essence, self-governing because they own themselves. The state is a renouncement of these freedoms, or at least the vesting of power into some superior power (a legislative authority, a legal authority, a state, etc). Without a state, every individual is a legal institution. This division between "informal law" and "formal law" means absolutely nothing, and you seem to be the only one to see it. I take it it's on appearance: if it's between two crackpots it's informal, but if it's typed up by a secretary it's "formal" superior law? That's not very consistent, is it?

Again with the circular reasoning.
The own themselves because the law says they do because they own themselves because the law says they do because they own themselves...

You cannot use propertarian ownership as justification for the law because propertarian ownership is part of the law and thus cannot precede it.

I never said that formal law was superior. I said it was a type of law.
Two crackpots are unlikely to be the corporation responsible for formalising the law of a society.

Stop wasting straw.

I don't see how this is a strawman, considering almost every argument you can come up with is a sorites.

That is false.

[Conscentia]

Autonomy. If you can make laws within your group (at least largely) unfettered by exterior group's laws and have a reasonable expectation of enforcing said laws, then you are a society in terms of lawmaking.

Societies aren't law-crafting organisms. A society cannot make laws. Legal institutions make laws.

In a direct democracy, society is the legal institution.
Otherwise, a constituent corporation of a society is responsible for the law making.

[Arkolon]

Every person has the ability to, in a state of nature, write up their own laws because they are, in essence, self-governing because they own themselves. The state is a renouncement of these freedoms, or at least the vesting of power into some superior power (a legislative authority, a legal authority, a state, etc). Without a state, every individual is a legal institution. This division between "informal law" and "formal law" means absolutely nothing, and you seem to be the only one to see it. I take it it's on appearance: if it's between two crackpots it's informal, but if it's typed up by a secretary it's "formal" superior law? That's not very consistent, is it?

Again with the circular reasoning.
The own themselves because the law says they do because they own themselves because the law says they do because they own themselves...

They are legal institutions because they are self-governing because they own themselves because they own themselves because they are alive. Not circular.

You cannot use propertarian ownership as justification for the law because propertarian ownership is part of the law and thus cannot precede it.

We went over this, though.

I never said that formal law was superior. I said it was a type of law.
Two crackpots are unlikely to be the corporation responsible for formalising the law of a society.

The law between both of them, yes. Society in a state of nature would be a network of legal institutions bound by laws.

I don't see how this is a strawman, considering almost every argument you can come up with is a sorites.

That is false.

Hmm?

[Arkolon]

Societies aren't law-crafting organisms. A society cannot make laws. Legal institutions make laws.

In a direct democracy, society is the legal institution.

No, because kids can't vote, animals can't vote, the non-citizens can't vote, the incapable can't vote, and in the direct democracies of the past women, brown people, and slaves could not vote either. A legal institution is found within the pictural representation of a society. The type of government that is used determines the size of the diagram.

Otherwise, a constituent corporation of a society is responsible for the law making.

Yes, of course, but what is a constituent corporation? How small a size can we go?

[Twilight Imperium]

Yes, of course, but what is a constituent corporation? How small a size can we go?

Again, autonomy, not size. One man alone on a planet could make laws for that entire planet. The New Sutherland Glee club can only make rules that do not conflict with the laws of New Sutherland.

And in the case of the constituent corporation, anywhere between one person and all of the people that exist. It's up to the society.