How do you know you're a person open to reason?

[OngBonga]

The difference eludes nobody. Why do you say something is the way it is because the law says so?

I'm saying theft is a legal creation. Theft didn't exist until the law defined and protected an individual's ownership rights.

Theft is taking someone else's stuff against their will, right? Define "someone else's stuff" in a world without law.

[wufwugy]

I'm saying theft is a legal creation. Theft didn't exist until the law defined and protected an individual's ownership rights.

Theft is taking someone else's stuff against their will, right? Define "someone else's stuff" in a world without law.

Do you think theft is wrong?

[OngBonga]

Do you think theft is wrong?

Yes, I believe the unlawful taking of another person's property is immoral.

This is besides the point. If there is no law, then the concept of theft becomes redundant, because both "unlawful" and "another person's property" no longer means anything.

[wufwugy]

Yes, I believe the unlawful taking of another person's property is immoral.

Do you believe it is immoral because it is unlawful?

[OngBonga]

Do you believe it is immoral because it is unlawful?

No, I believe it's immoral because I respect private ownership. I understand that an item belongs to someone, and I understand that to take that item off them is to act immorally. It has nothing to do with law, and everything to do with my character. I am civilised.

I don't think smoking weed is immoral.

[wufwugy]

No

Does this mean you believe theft exists without codification by law?

[OngBonga]

Does this mean you believe theft exists without codification by law?

Of course not. Theft is a legal creation, it can't exist without law.

Taking stuff off other people exists outside of law, but the morality of it, and the ownership status, are both subjective outside of law.