4. Reinecke in TSAR (1976: 33) argues that the link between damage and wrongfulness should be the concept of patrimony. Explain how you understand his approach. In view of this explanation, where does personality infringement fit in? What about illegal earnings and maintenance earned illegally? Explain.
Reinecke's argument in TSAR (1976: 33) suggests that the concept of patrimony, or an individual's property rights and interests, should form the basis of understanding the link between damage and wrongfulness. In other words, when damage is done to an individual's patrimony, such as their physical property or financial assets, it is inherently wrongful because it violates their rights and interests in their possessions.
When it comes to personality infringement, such as defamation or invasion of privacy, it can also be seen as a violation of an individual's patrimony. This is because one's reputation and personal identity can be considered part of their property rights and interests, and any harm done to these aspects can be seen as damage to their patrimony.
In the case of illegal earnings and maintenance earned illegally, these actions can be seen as damaging to the individual's patrimony as well. Illegal earnings are obtained through unlawful means and can be seen as a violation of property rights and interests because they are not rightfully earned. Similarly, maintenance earned illegally, such as through bribery or corruption, can also be considered damaging to an individual's patrimony because it undermines the integrity of their financial assets and overall reputation.
Overall, Reinecke's argument suggests that the concept of patrimony provides a framework for understanding the link between damage and wrongfulness in various contexts, including personality infringement and illegal earnings. It highlights the importance of respecting an individual's property rights and interests in determining the wrongful nature of certain actions.