Let's apply this thinking to a contemporary problem - that of who is responsible  for the ills caused (or allegedly caused) by years and decades of tobacco consumption by an individual.

The argument goes that the manufacturers who process the tobacco and the companies that sell the tobacco, are somehow "responsible" for the detrimental effects of the tobacco on the health of those who purchased and ingested the tobacco.

The argument maintains that those ingested the tobacco were somehow "defrauded", in that they were enticed by slick marketing and advertising, and did not have an adequate knowledge that consuming tobacco could ultimately be detrimental to their health, and could in some cases lead to either a compulsive habit, or an addiction.

This argument persists in spite of large labels testifying to the health effects of tobacco, and decades of loud and ubiquitous eductional campaigns, informing the purchasers of such items of the risks and hazards.

Remember that when an item is purchased, the buyer becomes the new exclusive owner of the item, with full rights and authority over the use and disposal of the item, and full responsibility for it - which include any possible effects on his or her person.

While an owner might seek to voluntarily join with others to mitigate his risk of loss by spreading or dividing the financial effects of that potential loss among such a group of voluntary risk-sharers (insurance), he is still, as the owner of the item, fundamentally and primarily responsible for the property and its effects, including upon himself.

In the next example that follows, we shall consider the significance of this concept when a person wishes to bequeath his assets to an heir or survivor.  the survivor must be willing to accept, for a transfer of ownership to occur.

Go to next lesson ...>>