by John Mark
“Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.”
Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement.
As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.