Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    For those who obsess over the law of the land:
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      For the record, I never agreed with the premise that all taxation is immoral.
      Never claimed you did.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        Okay. So is it possible for us to have a discussion free of whether the conceptions discussed are remotely practical? Or must the conceptions meet a certain bar of 'practicality' before they're worth the time and effort to disccus them?
        It is certainly possible, but I would argue that it would be a question for a separate thread, not this one. Then again I'm not convinced that me discussing such a thing with you would be fruitful.

        First: I agree with you that the modern concept of ownership is flawed when compared to a more collectivistic and biblical notion of ownership.

        Second: I do not think that the conception of biblical ownership would be impractical to introduce in the modern west would be impractical in the sense that the structures of society couldn't possibly support such a change of legal concept.

        What I am arguing is that a change such as this would most likely lead to massive protest from the people living in these societies, and that they would be quite adamant in their opposition to such a change of concept. It is in this way you should understand my assertion that a change in concept of ownership would not likely be practical.
        ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Wait, what? Where are you getting the idea that Jubilee law was not enforced, or that the Jews conducted their business like it wasn't?
          As I have already said, it was Jesse who argued that Jubilee was rarely if ever enforced.

          At any rate, the law was already on the books whether it was enforced or not, so this still isn't an example of forcibly changing a good-faith agreement after the fact and against the will of one or both parties.
          The point is that though many parties would have made good-faith agreements to actually transfer ownership of the land, Jubilee's obligations were still binding.

          Bottom line, and for the last time, Jubilee law does not support modern ideas of "wealth redistribution" in any way, shape, or form, and low-information morons like you and Sam need to stop pretending that it does.
          It really is quite fascinating how your categorisations seemingly leave you with no other option but to classify me as a [Yankee] liberal.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            It is certainly possible, but I would argue that it would be a question for a separate thread, not this one. Then again I'm not convinced that me discussing such a thing with you would be fruitful.

            First: I agree with you that the modern concept of ownership is flawed when compared to a more collectivistic and biblical notion of ownership.

            Second: I do not think that the conception of biblical ownership would be impractical to introduce in the modern west would be impractical in the sense that the structures of society couldn't possibly support such a change of legal concept.

            What I am arguing is that a change such as this would most likely lead to massive protest from the people living in these societies, and that they would be quite adamant in their opposition to such a change of concept.
            It would take God changing hearts. TRULY.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              It is certainly possible, but I would argue that it would be a question for a separate thread, not this one. Then again I'm not convinced that me discussing such a thing with you would be fruitful.
              That certainly is your decision to make

              First: I agree with you that the modern concept of ownership is flawed when compared to a more collectivistic and biblical notion of ownership.

              Second: I do not think that the conception of biblical ownership would be impractical to introduce in the modern west would be impractical in the sense that the structures of society couldn't possibly support such a change of legal concept.

              What I am arguing is that a change such as this would most likely lead to massive protest from the people living in these societies, and that they would be quite adamant in their opposition to such a change of concept.
              Change doesn't necessarily have to be a wholesale overnight rewriting of all the laws.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                That's a flat out lie. You come up with your own goofy definition of "truly", as is typical of you, to twist what somebody else is saying.
                No, you lie.

                What I have said is that LEGALLY I own -- and I TRULY legally own property. However, because of my Heavenly citizenship, I realize that, for God's sake, I am simply a steward of what he has entrusted to me.
                I have not disputed that according to your law you 'own' property. What I have said is that such 'ownership' is not true ownership because everything belongs to God, which you agree with.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  Right.

                  So we reformulate it so that it says that we have been granted stewardship of God's possession. That should take care of the issue of circularity. And I see no reason to think that certain things couldn't essentially be communal.
                  I will press this point, because one hallmark of the modern view is that is the basic relation of ownership is between what is owned and an individual. Do we disagree and say that it is possible that for some things the basic relation of ownership is communal?

                  Ultimately yes, but this thread is specifically about the practical concern specific to a certain time and place (in this case the modern US) which means that to stay on topic in this thread you necessarily will have to deal with the concept of ownership as it is understood in the modern US.

                  This is Tweb. We don't stay on topic.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    That certainly is your decision to make
                    I'm just not convinced that it would be fruitful of us to wade through our wide agreements on this issue until we come across something that we genuinely disagree on.

                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Change doesn't necessarily have to be a wholesale overnight rewriting of all the laws.
                    Again, I agree, but how does this address my point (that CP rightly recognized) that it is the hearts of people that would need to be changed before we could even think about changing the laws?
                    ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      No, you lie.
                      Nope. Do not!

                      I have not disputed that according to your law you 'own' property.
                      I TRULY own the property, according to the laws of the land.

                      What I have said is that such 'ownership' is not true ownership
                      And that's ignorant.

                      because everything belongs to God, which you agree with.
                      As a Christian, I recognize that everything belongs to God. That does NOT cancel out the fact that, according to the laws of the State of Texas, I TRULY own property. You're doing that false dichotomy thing you pretend to dislike.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I'm just not convinced that it would be fruitful of us to wade through our wide agreements on this issue until we come across something that we genuinely disagree on.
                        I would think that widely agreeing is a good thing, not least because we can build on that shared foundation

                        Again, I agree, but how does this address my point (that CP rightly recognized) that it is the hearts of people that would need to be changed before we could even think about changing the laws?
                        And when did I ever claim that the first thing that should be done is to change the laws? Since I didn't, I'm not sure what the point of that point is.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          I will press this point, because one hallmark of the modern view is that is the basic relation of ownership is between what is owned and an individual. Do we disagree and say that it is possible that for some things the basic relation of ownership is communal?
                          I've already displayed agreement with the notion that some ownership can (and even should) legitimately be seen as communal. You're certainly free to press this point if you want, but I'm not really sure why you'd feel the need to do that, instead of just carrying on with the point that you were trying to make by asking the question in the first place.

                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                          This is Tweb. We don't stay on topic.
                          This genuinely made me crack a smile.
                          Last edited by JonathanL; 03-23-2015, 01:42 PM. Reason: fixed a grammatical mistake
                          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Nope.


                            That does NOT cancel out the fact that, according to the laws of the State of Texas, I TRULY own property. You're doing that false dichotomy thing you pretend to dislike.

                            I haven't disputed that according to some of man's scribblings on papers you 'own' stuff.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              I've already agreement with the notion that some ownership can (and even should) legitimately be seen as communal. You're certainly free to press this point if you want, but I'm not really sure why you'd feel the need to do that, instead of just carrying on with the point that you were trying to make by asking the question in the first place.
                              We are agreed that it is possible that the basic ownership relation of some things is communal. So let's consider a certain sum of money, that by a modern view of ownership belongs to an individual. However, if its basic ownership relation is communal, then it certainly does not belong to him alone, no matter what he thinks. If it is the case that such possibility exists, it opens up the possibility that redistribution can be moral.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                I would think that widely agreeing is a good thing, not least because we can build on that shared foundation
                                Right. If you want to you're free to create a thread on this issue, and if you ever state something I disagree with I'll chip in.

                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                And when did I ever claim that the first thing that should be done is to change the laws? Since I didn't, I'm not sure what the point of that point is.
                                I'm not sure that I ever asserted that you claimed that the first thing that should be done is to change the laws. My point was simply that I did not see how your statement interacted with what I wrote in my post in any relevant sense.
                                ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, 07-27-2021, 10:22 AM
                                50 responses
                                401 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by seer, 07-26-2021, 12:04 PM
                                65 responses
                                402 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Started by rogue06, 07-26-2021, 07:21 AM
                                11 responses
                                102 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 07-25-2021, 07:36 PM
                                22 responses
                                139 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 07-24-2021, 01:18 PM
                                7 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X