I tshould have been clearer about what I mean by the law. I'm treating the laws themselves as immutable, and referring to the process of their interpretation. I

I tshould have been clearer about what I mean by the law. I'm treating the laws themselves as immutable, and referring to the process of their interpretation. Ie, the judgment that happens in a courtroom. Which laws should exist depends on moral arguments though. So the point does essentially stand. The fact that people act out of mostly inscrutable, heuristic biological interest as a form of moral empiricism, does in fact count as out of bounds. I'm allowed to have a moral system that compels me not to reproduce, for instance. It's just not terribly likely (although not impossible) to be an effective reproductive strategy. If you want to have a completely unrelated discussion about this, I'm more than willing, but I think you should probably refine the proposition "Private property exists".