Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[Paprika]

Unless the modern legal concept of ownership is first overturned by a more biblical concept I fail to see how redistribution mandated by law could in any way be justified.

I'm not sure what you want, Chrawnus.

On one hand you say that 'I find it hard to think that this concept will ever be overturned', which seems to me to be saying that you think it's useless to talk what ownership really is, on another hand you're saying that here that we need a more biblical concept (seemingly because the modern concept is flawed), but we surely need to discuss it before we can expound on it to others.

So what do you want?

[Cow Poke]

I don't know how I see it, honestly. I think had I been older, and lived closer I would have tried to fight harder for my grandfather. The farm changed after that day. Instead of being a bit of idyllic country in the heart of the Midwest, surrounded by other German, Russian, and Amish family farms the demands of population growth altered the environment, turned the country into a suburb, and apparently the government felt that it was a necessary evil for the greater good of the community to build a highway. Were we being selfish for wanting to hold onto what generations of my family had worked and cared for for so long? I don't know. Maybe. Its not like they didn't pay my grandfather well, but the land became part of the family's identity, and to see that taken away was heartbreaking. Ultimately, I think I understand the dilemma on both sides, and its hard for me to say that what the government did was completely wrong, though, I of course wish there was another way.

Yeah.

[JonathanL]

I'm not sure what you want, Chrawnus.

On one hand you say that 'I find it hard to think that this concept will ever be overturned', which seems to me to be saying that you think it's useless to talk what ownership really is, on another hand you're saying that here that we need a more biblical concept (seemingly because the modern concept is flawed), but we surely need to discuss it before we can expound on it to others.

So what do you want?

My position is that in an ideal world the concept of ownership in the modern West would reflect what we find in the Bible. Unfortunately I think a change in thinking towards this understanding in the modern West is not likely to happen, but I'm not so convinced of this that I find any discussion on it would necessarily be unfruitful.

[Paprika]

I'm inclined to agree with you on that one.

So the seemingly impossible can happen. Hence 'it can never happen' should not be an obstacle at this point when we're trying to thrash out basic concepts.

My understanding of what ownership ultimately is is that we have been granted stewardship of our possessions and are expected to the best of our abilities to use them to the glory of God (which would include helping those less fortunate than ourselves).

Do you disagree with this understanding?

I don't disagree, though I think the way you conceptualise it with 'possessions' is bound to be circular. There are two questions that immediately arise. The first is the the very nature of possession. Is it basically individual, so that ownership is essentially a relation between what is owned and the individual owner, with many individuals possibly share ownership through a conjunction of relations? Or could ownership of certain things be essentially be communal?

This thread is specifically about the situation in the US, so the question of whether it's practical to implement a more biblical (or communalistic) concept of ownership seems to me to be of paramount importance in the context of this thread.

I would think that working out what is true is more important compared to the practical concerns specific to certain times and places since the latter are merely contingent.

[Mountain Man]

Jubilee law.

Are you seriously this stupid? To keep using this argument after the entire premise on which it is based has been demolished countless times across at least two threads?

Jubilee did not forcibly change an agreement between two parties after the fact and against their will. Ancient Jews who entered an agreement did so knowing that the Jubilee law was already in effect and conducted their business accordingly. It's nothing like what liberal idiots like you are asking for.

He changed his mind after dialoguing with me. What do you think?

I think he's probably even dumber than you are if he found any of your arguments convincing.

[Paprika]

My position is that in an ideal world the concept of ownership in the modern West would reflect what we find in the Bible. Unfortunately I think a change in thinking towards this understanding in the modern West is not likely to happen, but I'm not so convinced of this that I find any discussion on it would necessarily be unfruitful.

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?

[Paprika]

Are you seriously this stupid? To keep using this argument the entire premise on which it is based has been demolished countless times across at least two threads?

It wasn't meant as an argument. Rather, you made an assertion -"I contend that it's not" - and I respond alike.

Ancient Jews who entered an agreement did so knowing that the Jubilee law was already in effect and conducted their business accordingly.

Not at all. As I've already argued, they knew that Jubilee law generally was not enforced and hence land sales were very very likely conducted under such an understanding. However, Jubilee law was still morally and legally binding.

It's nothing like what liberal idiots like you are asking for.

I'm not a liberal, dumbass. Are your conceptions truly so narrow?

I think he's probably even dumber than you are if he found any of your arguments convincing.

I do respect a person who is able to admit error and change his mind. I'm just afraid I haven't seen any of that in you.

[Paprika]

ONLY if I accepted your goofy implied definition of "truly".

You yourself agree that we are only stewards of what is given to use. Hence we don't truly own anything. It's not that hard.

Correct, you can't force me to accept your tortured definitions.

Wrong: I can't force you to think.

Actually, it's one stolen from my hands by you and twisted into your own meanings.

You're the one obsessing over what your lawyers would say about a Christian understanding of ownership. Peculiar, especially for a pastor.

I suggest you ask the Lutherans.

You're the one who brought 'grace' and 'legalism' in this discussion. Why? What relevance do they have?

I am instructed to give generously, and with a grateful heart. I enjoy doing that, and am blessed for it.

It appears you're losing this argument, because you're reverting back to petulance. "project", my eye!


You're playing games, Papster.

What you would do or are instructed to do is not Deut 15, which was directed to the Jews. So don't project.

[Paprika]

As far as I can tell its something that they are legally allowed to do.

For those who obsess over the law of the land: if it's the government who legally 'owns' the land in a certain country, are they then not allowed to generally redistribute it as they see fit by the law of the land, barring any binding contracts made with citizens?

[Mountain Man]

For those who are interested, here is how my conversation with Joel went, to the best of my memory:

Joel maintained that all taxation is immoral: it was forcibly taking from the people of what belonged to them by the government, and so it was theft, which was immoral.

My counter was that it was clear from Romans 13 that some taxation was condoned by God. And this makes sense because we don't actually own what is taxed, God does; so if God ordains that one steward take from another that is hardly theft.

So Joel now is of the view that not all taxation is immoral.

Well done. Now that's actually a valid argument. For the record, I never agreed with the premise that all taxation is immoral. For that matter, even Jesus advocated the paying of taxes. I was just curious, in light of your disasterous Jubilee arguments, if you were even capable of putting together a proper argument at all.

[JonathanL]

So the seemingly impossible can happen. Hence 'it can never happen' should not be an obstacle at this point when we're trying to thrash out basic concepts.

Right.

I don't disagree, though I think the way you conceptualise it with 'possessions' is bound to be circular. There are two questions that immediately arise. The first is the the very nature of possession. Is it basically individual, so that ownership is essentially a relation between what is owned and the individual owner, with many individuals possibly share ownership through a conjunction of relations? Or could ownership of certain things be essentially be communal?

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 would think that working out what is true is more important compared to the practical concerns specific to certain times and places since the latter are merely contingent.

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.

[Cow Poke]

You yourself agree that we are only stewards of what is given to use. Hence we don't truly own anything.

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.

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.

Merriam-Webster:
Full Definition of TRULY
1a : indeed —often used as an intensive <truly, she is fair> or interjectionally to express astonishment or doubt
b: without feigning, falsity, or inaccuracy in truth or fact
2: in all sincerity : sincerely —often used with yours as a complimentary close
3: in agreement with fact : truthfully
4: with exactness of construction or operation
5: in a proper or suitable manner

I TRULY legally own the possessions I hold, and have legal documentation to prove that.

It's not that hard.

Apparently, it is for you.

[Cow Poke]

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.

That doesn't serve his purpose.

[Mountain Man]

I've already argued, they knew that Jubilee law generally was not enforced and hence land sales were very very likely conducted under such an understanding.

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?

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.

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.

[Mountain Man]

I do respect a person who is able to admit error and change his mind. I'm just afraid I haven't seen any of that in you.

"Look out! The irony meter! She's a-gonna blow!"