@no1marauder saidYou say there is no moral justification for a corp to own large tracts of land, which could also be said for one family (the King Ranch in NMexico, roughly speaking) to own thousands of acres, as in in the series Yellowstone. Yes, even for me the capitalist, that is a bit hard to justify.
The logical conclusion is that there is no moral justication for such ownership though there's been about a 300 year philosophical dispute about Locke's treatment of this point.
Let's say we agree, that it is just 'too much'. But whittle it down a moment. Is it OK for a man to own his little half acre with a house on it? Please say yes or no, and then tell us, what is the difference.
Suzianne, this would be a good topic for you to cut your teeth on! The big corp owns a million acres, Joe Neighbor, he owns his house.
@AverageJoe1 saidYes, if he's possessing it.
You say there is no moral justification for a corp to own large tracts of land, which could also be said for one family (the King Ranch in NMexico, roughly speaking) to own thousands of acres, as in in the series Yellowstone. Yes, even for me the capitalist, that is a bit hard to justify.
Let's say we agree, that it is just 'too much'. But whittle it down a mome ...[text shortened]... for you to cut your teeth on! The big corp owns a million acres, Joe Neighbor, he owns his house.
It's the difference between personal.property and private property.
@no1marauder said“Again, the Founders and Framers disagreed with your POV.“
Again, the Founders and Framers disagreed with your POV.
People don't lack rights even if they live in a tyranny that doesn't respect them.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
Rights first, then governments who's purpose is to make the rights secure.
it is you that misunderstands what the framers meant
“People don't lack rights even if they live in a tyranny that doesn't respect them.”
Yes they do lack rights, that is what tyranny is 🙄
“ "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "”
making them legal rights
“ Rights first, then governments who's purpose is to make the rights secure.”
Again, making them legal rights
There is a reason you can’t name me a natural right, there are none, it’s a feel good claim that has no substance
@no1marauder saidWait, I was talking about real property in legal terms. Are you on anarchist theory right now? Let's stay on track. I pulled this up, No reference of course to real property.
Yes, if he's possessing it.
It's the difference between personal.property and private property.
. In anarchist theory, private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, whereas personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
Please distinguish
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI and others have already given you the basic categories of Natural Rights.
“Again, the Founders and Framers disagreed with your POV.“
it is you that misunderstands what the framers meant
“People don't lack rights even if they live in a tyranny that doesn't respect them.”
Yes they do lack rights, that is what tyranny is 🙄
“ "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power ...[text shortened]... you can’t name me a natural right, there are none, it’s a feel good claim that has no substance [/b]
You really don't understand the philosophy this country is(was?) based on.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidMott.....You don't want to go there!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Again, the Founders and Framers disagreed with your POV.“
it is you that misunderstands what the framers meant
“People don't lack rights even if they live in a tyranny that doesn't respect them.”
Yes they do lack rights, that is what tyranny is 🙄
“ "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power ...[text shortened]... you can’t name me a natural right, there are none, it’s a feel good claim that has no substance [/b]
Got caught up with the erudite marauder on this one a year or so ago, the beauty of being a Professor of Natural Rights is that the Prof can stand in front of his students and wax on Natural Rights for a semester, and grade final exams without so much as a glance at their papers! .... Followed by giving them any grade he chooses to sprinkle around.....................ALL grades will be correct!!!!!!!!!
1 edit
@no1marauder said“ I and others have already given you the basic categories of Natural Rights”
I and others have already given you the basic categories of Natural Rights.
You really don't understand the philosophy this country is(was?) based on.
You “and others” 😂 haven’t given the first one yet.
“ You really don't understand the philosophy this country is(was?) based on.”
This country was founded on Christianity and a higher being. The same with all these natural rights…it’s all in your head, nothing tangible.”
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidPrevailing Christian doctrine was that Christian Kings ruled on behalf of God and the People owed them obedience ("render to Caesar what is Ceasar's" ).
“ I and others have already given you the basic categories of Natural Rights”
You “and others” 😂 haven’t given the first one yet.
“ You really don't understand the philosophy this country is(was?) based on.”
This country was founding on Christianity and a higher being. The same with all these natural rights…it’s all in your head, nothing tangible.”
Locke and others advocated a view of limited government created to protect Natural Rights that the People were justified in replacing if it failed to do so. This was the intellectual heritage the Founders/Framers adopted.
@no1marauder saidI’m trying to find “Locke” listed as a founding father…getting no where. Can you help me out here?
Prevailing Christian doctrine was that Christian Kings ruled on behalf of God and the People owed them obedience ("render to Caesar what is Ceasar's" ).
Locke and others advocated a view of limited government created to protect Natural Rights that the People were justified in replacing if it failed to do so. This was the intellectual heritage the Founders/Framers adopted.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThis article is helpful: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/lockean-liberalism-and-american-revolution
I’m trying to find “Locke” listed as a founding father…getting no where. Can you help me out here?
Adams, Jefferson and other Founders were using Locke's ideas virtually verbatim in their writings, while critics of the revolutionary movement were voicing the obedience to God and his anointed rulers I just mentioned.
@no1marauder saidSo now you resort to opinion articles?
This article is helpful: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/lockean-liberalism-and-american-revolution
Adams, Jefferson and other Founders were using Locke's ideas virtually verbatim in their writings, while critics of the revolutionary movement were voicing the obedience to God and his anointed rulers I just mentioned.
Yes, many people have thoughts. Because some coincide at points doesnt mean a thing.
At this point your argument fails.
Thanks for your attention on this matter.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidChristianity and natural rights go together. "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights"...
“ I and others have already given you the basic categories of Natural Rights”
You “and others” 😂 haven’t given the first one yet.
“ You really don't understand the philosophy this country is(was?) based on.”
This country was founded on Christianity and a higher being. The same with all these natural rights…it’s all in your head, nothing tangible.”
1 edit
IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
ET AL.,
B. Birthright Citizenship Is Consistent With The
Church’s Fundamental Teaching Regarding
Every Human Person’s Inherent Dignity
The Church also teaches that political authority is a
sharing in the authority of God. Catechism of the
Catholic Church ¶2238; see Pope Pius XII, Radio
Message of His Holiness to the People of the Entire
World (Dec. 24, 1944) (“[T]he dignity of man is the
dignity of the moral community willed by God, the
dignity of political authority is the dignity deriving from
its sharing in the authority of God.” ). It follows that the
exercise of that authority is bound by the natural law to
protect the dignity of humans (as God’s image-bearers)
and to promote God’s justice.
2 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople said
I’m trying to find “Locke” listed as a founding father…getting no where. Can you help me out here?
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/honoring-our-founding-philosopher
Honoring Our Founding Philosopher
John Locke’s birthday, on August 29 in 1632, is not often celebrated or even remembered. This is a serious oversight. We should mark the day and honor the man for his enormously consequential contributions to the theory of knowledge and to political philosophy.
Google AI says:
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a prominent, influential nonpartisan organization of conservatives and libertarians founded in 1982. It promotes an originalist and textualist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, advocating for limited government, judicial restraint, and federalism through a nationwide network of students, lawyers, and legal scholars.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThanks for asking us to elaborate. This is turning into a very educational thread for the masses. Your hostility does not hurt the education process.
I’m trying to find “Locke” listed as a founding father…getting no where. Can you help me out here?