| Men, as ethical actors, have rights. But, we are not timeless; each of us is only here for a limited time. And it is only during that time that we are ethical actors. So, when do we start being ethical actors having rights worth considering, and when do we cease being the same and lose our rights? And related to that, if we start ethical life with any property, from whom is that property taken, and what happens to our property when ethical life ends? | 倫理的な行動者として人には権利がある。だが人の時間が限られている。その時間の間だけ倫理的な行動者である。だから、いつ権利を持つ倫理的な行動者になる？そして、いつ行動者じゃなくなって権利を失う？その時の所有について、倫理的な生命を始まった時、ある最小限の所有を持つ？誰から貰う？そして、倫理的な生命が終わる時に、所有はどうなる？ |
| These questions are necessarily tied up in the questions of who is an ethical actor and what is not an ethical actor. Some might assert that ethical actors are only working-age men between the ages of 18 and 65, and everything else (including men outside of that age range) is not. Again, it is not our purpose to dictate the answer to that question. We only observe that ethical actors must become such at some point in time, and cease being such at a later point in time. | この問題は必然で誰が倫理的な行動者か、何が倫理的な行動者じゃないかの二つの問題と絡み付いている。「十八歳から六十五歳まで、生産年齢の人だけが倫理的な行動者だ」と主張するものがあるかも知らない。また行っておくが、その質問の答えは拙者の目的ではない。ただ、倫理的な行動者が「そんな者」になる時がある、そしてその後のいつかで「そんな者」じゃなくなると述べる。 |
| In describing this theory, we will assume as a convention that all living human beings are ethical actors. So, upon conception, a child is a human being (whereas before that point “he” was two gametes, which are not human, since they lacked a human’s full genetic data), and alive, so he becomes an ethical actor at that moment. Then, when he dies, he ceases to be an ethical actor. | この理論の記述では、仮定として全ての生きている人間が倫理的な行動者でござる。で、妊娠の時点から子が人間であって（その時点まで二つの人間の遺伝子を不全で持った配偶子だけであって、完全なる人間ではなかった）、生きていって、その時点で倫理的な行動者になる。そして、死ぬ時点で倫理的な行動者じゃなくなる。 |
| All ethical actors possess the right to acquire property in the same ways: via homesteading, and via transfer from another ethical actor. But, do they start their ethical lives with any property? While intuitively I would say that they start owning their bodies, this necessarily means that if their body-matter were someone else’s property before, at the beginning of ethical life they deprive that other party of property without a contract — i.e., through an invalid property transfer. We must therefore conclude that ethical actors start life without any property at all, until they homestead some or receive some from others. A corollary of this observation is that one cannot commit crimes against such an ethical actor, as he owns no property, and we will find later that all crimes are violations of property rights. This can result in parental tyranny, but it follows from absolute property rights that cannot be stripped without consent. | 全ての倫理的な行動者が所有を貰う方法を二つ持つ。ホームステッドをすることで、そして他の倫理的な行動者から受けることで。だが、倫理的な生命の初めに所有を持つのか？直観的に体がこの所有と言いたいが、それでは体の質量が他人の所有だったら子が契約無しの不正な譲渡で所有を貰うことになる。だから倫理的な行動者が何の所有もなく生命を始まる、ホームステッドするか他人から受けるかまで。後で「違反」は所有権を侵すことと見ますから、その帰結でそういう倫理的な行動者には違反は不可能でござる。親の圧制になることもあろうが、絶対所有権から所有を承知無し譲渡することを否定するしかない。 |
| For sentimental reasons as well as economic reasons, I would advocate that parents raise their children well, which would include recognizing their self-ownership immediately, but I cannot dictate that behavior. | 感情の理由と経済の理由で自体所有を認める育ち方を選ぶ親が良いと意見するが、拙者がその行動を決定付けれない。 |
| On the other end of the ethical actor’s life is their death. Once a man is no long an ethical actor, he no longer has any rights. His property, therefore, is lost to him. What happens to the ownership of that property? If he made contracts with others wherein he gifted to the other parties his various possessions in the event of his death, then the conditions of those contracts are fulfilled, and that property which he willed to those other parties become theirs. All his other property immediately becomes unowned, free for anyone to homestead. | 倫理的な行動者の生命の逆転は死でござる。人が倫理的な行動者じゃなくなると、もう権利はない。だからその人の所有が自分に失われる。その所有権はどうなる？死の条件で所有を譲渡する契約を結んだ場合、条件が満たされることで他者に指名した所有が譲渡される。だがそう指名しなかった所有が無主になり、誰でもホムステッドできるものになる。 |
| There are, here and there, cultural customs governing the disposition of a man’s property when he dies without leaving behind a will. These can be justified under the grounds that some executors homestead the unowned property by parsing it out to friends and family in accordance with the custom. Where the custom has support, the opportunist who swoops in to claim possessions from the recently dead (without wills) can be excoriated as virtually a grave robber, and brought to heel by social pressure. | 各地には遺言無き亡き人の所有を配置する文化の慣習がある。執行役人が無主の所有を分けることでホームステッドすることと見れば慣習が正当化する。その慣習の地では遺言無き亡き人の所有を貰う飛び掛けるご都合主義者が慣習を侵した異端者として社会的な圧力で慣習に従わせることもある。 |
Birth and Death
Bookmark the permalink.