Originally posted by Paprika
View Post
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.
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
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostOkay. 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?
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWait, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostRight.
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.
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 PostThat certainly is your decision to make
Originally posted by Paprika View PostChange doesn't necessarily have to be a wholesale overnight rewriting of all the laws.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostNo, you lie.
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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI'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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI 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?
Originally posted by Paprika View Post
This is Tweb. We don't stay on topic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNope.
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 PostI'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI would think that widely agreeing is a good thing, not least because we can build on that shared foundation
Originally posted by Paprika View PostAnd 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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Mountain Man, Today, 06:07 PM
|
10 responses
48 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 09:33 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 09:26 AM
|
6 responses
33 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 11:28 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 07:47 AM
|
8 responses
56 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 09:58 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:53 PM
|
25 responses
145 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 06:50 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 10:34 AM
|
31 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:36 AM |
Comment