Cannibals, property rights, identity theft

In response to my post “Desert-island readings,” V wrote:

these subjects [desert islands] are what is possible, not what is, and often their powerlessness or vulnerability is a means to think about concepts such as human rights and property (coming into their own in the 18th century, especially through colonialism) from the ground up. if we can imagine property through the position of penniless crusoe, or human rights through the cannibals he encounters, we can certainly begin imagining them for those back home in england.

Here’s an interesting idea: What about “property rights” through the eyes of a cannibal? So whose body is it, anyway? And how is what they (cannibals) are eating any different from, say, a rabbit or an apricot? You might contend (conveniently, for the purpose of this post…), “But a person, unlike a rabbit or an apricot, is a human... which is to say an individual... which is to say that each individual has an 'identity,' a 'self,' which makes them unique.” Or, in our PC lingo, "special" or "diverse." (Ever notice how, after Duke creams someone into oblivion, Coach K mentions the "special" effort the "special" opponent put forth in the "special" loss?)

(For the purposes of this post, allow me to steer away from a philosophical dualist theory to pose an interesting question from a philosophical materialist point of view.)

Consider this: The fifth century (B.C.) Greek poet Epicharmus theorized that “things are simply composed of the matter that makes them up. But that matter is in a constant state of flux; hence nothing remains the same from one instant to the next.” Therefore, Epicharmus could argue that there is no such thing as identity because as soon as “you” establish an identity, the next instant “you” have changed. This argument has obvious debts to Heraclitus. Conversely, as an exercise in dialectic, you might make a compelling counter-argument with Zeno’s (pre-Socratic Zeno, not the stoic Zeno of Citium) paradox of motion.

However, how could we conceive of “property rights” from the more credible view of Epicharmus? Is it “your” body being eaten? Oh, really? And who are “you”? Define “you.” Are “you” certain? etc. ad infinitum. Theoretically, by the time you could conceptualize, define, and express “your identity” in any given moment, at the most fundamental levels, “you” are already someone else – another “you.” So who really owns "your" body? And if there is no stable "you" to claim ownership of (or to) "your" body, then why shouldn't cannibals be able to enjoy it the same as an apricot they may stumble across walking "among the apricots," shall we say?

If matter is composed of atoms, and atoms are always and constantly moving randomly and unpredictably, then at what point can “you” claim a “stable” identity or even claim what "you" will be? For how long are “you,” “you”?

Also, a topic I will return to later… what of the notion of “identity theft”? What does this mean, to “steal someone’s identity”? This seems as mystifying as “stealing someone’s idea” (i.e. plagiarism). What does that mean? What is an "identity," and how is an idea "yours"?

Oh, I suspect you know where I’m heading. Yes, friends, it’s the “C” word, as in, our friend Adam Smith...

Already, this is getting very interesting…