How is property an inalienable right?

[Adami]

 What do you mean YOUR girlfriend? She's not your property dude. But when praxis becomes president, you'd be allowed to shoot anyone who tries to take her from you.

[ReaPsTA]

No rights actually exist unless you're religious.

What? Thats like saying there are no morals without religion.

I don't think that's true.  But like Adami said, they can't be objective.

[Sigz]

Out of curiosity,  is the entire planet (in this case each of it's separate components) owned by someone or something at any given time?  Every tree?  Every blade of grass?  Interstate 45?  The water in Lake Erie?  

Someone can probably confirm or deny this, but I was talking with someon from Germany a few weeks ago, and they still have some notion of the commons. If someone has a fruit tree growing on like the side walk, and you walk by, you are legally allowed to take the fruit to eat. I'm fairly sure the same is true in the Philippines; one of my best friends grew up there as a little kid, and said that there'd be public fruit tree's everywhere, where you can just go up and take the fruit to eat.

In Cambridge (and I'm sure other places in the UK) you're still legally able to allow your cows to graze on public grass during the spring and summer, so yeah, the notion of the commons definitely still exists in some places.

[rumborak]

So Rumborak, I guess the first question is, what's your opinion on property rights?  Otherwise, I don't know how you could be sold on the idea of property rights, because I don't want to either presume your opinion or try to make some claim about naturally existent rights that only exist to me because I think they do.

I'm pretty much on the same page as you really. I agree fully with you that property right are "agreed-on rights" ("I made this, so let's agree I have a right to keep this, because I will let you have the stuff you made"). But that's the wishy-washy extent of the claim really, and IMHO there is a limit to which one can bring this. In the end, it's based on the natural instinct of greed (Praxis seems to be hell-bent on showing that), and also needs to be treated as such. Libertarians glorify greed, but that also has well-known consequences to society. And yeah, as mentioned, this view blissfully ignores the problem of the Commons. In my opinion, any true stewardship of the planet can only start happening if we encode the public ownership of the Commons into our laws. Until then it will be "first come first serve".

rumborak

[Scheavo]

And yeah, as mentioned, this view blissfully ignores the problem of the Commons. In my opinion, any true stewardship of the planet can only start happening if we encode the public ownership of the Commons into our laws. Until then it will be "first come first serve".

rumborak

Well, to some sense, the EPA acknowledge this. Given what we know today, I can't imagine classical liberals saying environmental regulations is somehow an overreach of governmental powers.

[Super Dude]

No but there are plenty of loud voices saying so all the same.

[Scheavo]

Ya, people who would profit from the EPA going away.

[Super Dude]

That's kinda my point.

Although once that's happened the ignoramuses of the land latch onto it like it makes perfect sense, and how dare they impinge upon our natural freedoms as Americans.

[Major Thirteenth]

Americans' rights come from God, Creator, call it what you will.

This is incorrect. Rights do not come from any externality, real or imagined. Rights are a concept designed by Man and for Man.

[Super Dude]

Yes but this is DTF P/R; trying to convince anyone of anything will be as a work of God.

By the way I don't recognize your name; welcome to DTF P/R!

[rumborak]

It seems a rather weak divinely decreed right if humanist philosophers have to first discover it and then a whole people fight for it.

rumborak

[Gadough]

Ouch PraXis. Even Islamic law at least let's you keep your life.

To be honest, it really seems like he's dying to shoot someone. A good amount of his posts are about killing people who go on his property.

 

[PraXis]

If they stay off my property, they don't have to worry about being on the receiving end of this:



or something larger..... 

[Adami]

I can picture you standing over some guys body with a huge smile on your face that you finally got to kill a man for violating your property. Of course everyone standing around will wonder why you shot the mail man, but that's your business.

[PraXis]

I can picture you standing over some guys body with a huge smile on your face that you finally got to kill a man for violating your property. Of course everyone standing around will wonder why you shot the mail man, but that's your business.

It seems like my right to own firearms and defend personal has struck a nerve with those who I assume are of the liberal persuasion on this forum due to all the snarky comments. 

[Adami]

I can picture you standing over some guys body with a huge smile on your face that you finally got to kill a man for violating your property. Of course everyone standing around will wonder why you shot the mail man, but that's your business.

It seems like my right to own firearms and defend personal has struck a nerve with those who I assume are of the liberal persuasion on this forum due to all the snarky comments. 

You didn't strike a nerve with me, I just don't understand someone who gets off on the idea of killing a violator. Defense is a necessary evil in my eyes, not something to get psyched about. But I thought it was a good joke, so I made it.

[PraXis]

I can picture you standing over some guys body with a huge smile on your face that you finally got to kill a man for violating your property. Of course everyone standing around will wonder why you shot the mail man, but that's your business.

It seems like my right to own firearms and defend personal has struck a nerve with those who I assume are of the liberal persuasion on this forum due to all the snarky comments. 

You didn't strike a nerve with me, I just don't understand someone who gets off on the idea of killing a violator. Defense is a necessary evil in my eyes, not something to get psyched about. But I thought it was a good joke, so I made it.

I don't get off on killing a violator. I'm simply feel that property rights are sacred in America. Other than the west coast and north east, states recognize this right via the Castle Doctrine.

I guess my biggest pet peeves are theft.. I don't understand why someone would want to take anything from someone else.. this includes intruding on personal property. I don't intrude on another person's personal space... ie going door to door, soliciting on the street, etc... I just want to be left alone... my property is essentially my sanctuary... and no one gets to set foot on it unless they have my permission... and vice versa.

Another part of it is from the fact that I was born and lived in one of the most dangerous cities in the country... the moved somewhere much safer.. then again lived in another very dangerous city (college campus location).. but now I've been back in my once-safe area and there has been a rise in crime SPECIFICALLY with trespassing/theft... it just sets me off thinking that someone intrudes on anyone's property, especially with evil intent.

I'm hoping I never have to resort to my guns in defense... at least not when living in NJ (no Castle Doctrine).. 1st line of defense is a ridiculously loud/complex security system.

[Adami]

I get that you respect property rights and all that jazz, but you DO seem to get pretty psyched about the whole killing trespassers thing, if you aren't psyched about it, then you're doing an awful job of hiding it.

[rumborak]

On a sidenote, isn't the killing for the protection of one's property just about the most un-Christian thing one can do? I mean, it's a combination of murder (bad), greed (bad), and certainly no "turning the other cheek" or sharing involved.
I especially love the fact that you would have mowed over Jesus in Matthew 12:1.

rumborak

[Adami]

On a sidenote, isn't the killing for the protection of one's property just about the most un-Christian thing one can do? I mean, it's a combination of murder (bad), greed (bad), and certainly no "turning the other cheek" or sharing involved.

rumborak

I'm not sure PraXis is christian.

[Nigerius Rex]

Context matters and I am far from a bible pro, but I remember the lord personally very harshly punishing murders and thieves usually with death or impairment of some kind and encouraged his followers to do so.

Exodus 22:2

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22&version=KJV

2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

 3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

[Adami]

None of that applies to christians.

[Nigerius Rex]

Why not?

[Adami]

Why not?

For some reason you guys are allowed to eat shell fish. You're not the target audience, at least that's the christian point of view.

[Nigerius Rex]

Christians take their cues from the bible. Obviously its not a cut and paste, but if its grey area and there is a non vague passage that addresses the matter why shouldn't it apply?

[Adami]

Christians take their cues from the bible. Obviously its not a cut and paste, but if its grey area and there is a non vague passage that addresses the matter why shouldn't it apply?

Ask Bosk, from what I know the "old testament" applies to the Israelites, of which you are not. That's why you guys don't murder children who yell at their parents, the laws in those books don't apply to you, only the laws Jesus and his best good friend Saul carried over. You'd have to find something from the gospels or Sauls ramblings to justify in a christian mindset.

[Nigerius Rex]

Ah, I see. Needs more bible pro.

[Super Dude]

I'm pretty sure he's a Christian, what with his insisting that his right to his own property is a God-given right.  He's certainly no Jew, what with all the gun-toting.

[rumborak]

Context matters and I am far from a bible pro, but I remember the lord personally very harshly punishing murders and thieves usually with death or impairment of some kind and encouraged his followers to do so.

So what about Matthew 12:1 then? Shouldn't Jesus and his disciples be punished for this obvious theft? Matthew 21:1 isn't much better either.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Context matters and I am far from a bible pro, but I remember the lord personally very harshly punishing murders and thieves usually with death or impairment of some kind and encouraged his followers to do so.

So what about Matthew 12:1 then? Shouldn't Jesus and his disciples be punished for this obvious theft? Matthew 21:1 isn't much better either.

rumborak

There was no "theft" involved, as what Jesus and his disciples were doing was expressly permitted under Jewish law.  Jews were strictly commanded that at harvest time, they were NOT to completely harvest their crops, but were supposed to leave, for example, the corners of their wheat fields so the poor could come and take what they needed to eat.  The command is reiterated a few places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, and we see an example of it in the book of Ruth where Ruth is gleaning in the fields of Boaz to get food for herself and her mother-in-law.  Wikipedia has a decent description of the general concept:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning

[yeshaberto]

and the cool thing about this law is not only did it provide for the poor, but the poor were able to participate in the process (and hence experience the blessing of "working" for their food) rather than merely receiving a handout

[rumborak]

Isn't that a copout, to say that those Jews were expected to surrender part of their crop to the public (which I'm sure Praxis would have a heart attack about too if asked to do so).
It also doesn't explain the donkey story. Jesus really just ordered to donkey to be stolen without regard to the owner of it.
Besides, what point are you making here? Jesus was an itinerant preacher without any personal possessions, and thus by definition a freeloader. He was being kicked out of towns who didn't appreciate his "payment" (preaching) for his freeloading and in turn damned those towns.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Isn't that a copout, to say that those Jews were expected to surrender part of their crop to the public.

No.  It can't be a copout because it is precisely what their law required them to do.  (and, frankly, I don't really care whether Praxis would have a heart attack about it or not)

Besides, what point are you making here?

The point I am making is simply that your analysis is incorrect because the example you gave is inapplicable to the present situation and is based on your misunderstanding of a Biblical text.  And besides you being completely wrong in trying to classify Jesus as a thief, it is completely irrelevant to the thread topic.

[rumborak]

I'm not saying he was a thief; he was a freeloader (because that's how itinerant preachers operated), and as such Praxis most likely would have mowed him over.
What I am saying is that it is rather weird to see self-professed Christians espouse this extreme form of Capitalism, where Jesus' message was almost bordering Communism (if not actually outright so).

rumborak

[bosk1]

"Self-professed Christians" make the mistake of espousing a lot of goofy ideas that aren't necessarily biblical.  Just sayin'.