Political Crossfire Forums

[zero18]

MajorWoody wrote: So, what makes your beliefs more correct than Marxists?

This is political philosophy, not a hard science, so I can't point to a fact and use that to explain why my beliefs are correct and why Marxism is wrong.

I do not accept Marxism because it denies private property and believe that individuals need the permission of society to use the elements around them.



Quote: That is one of the arguments that a few people put out there a while ago; that people can not own land, now that is your opinion and you are entitled to that but I am entitled to my opinion and until you can convince the majority in a representative democracy the opinion that currently stands will continue to be law.

Having a majority doesn't make it truth.



Quote: What if I wanted to cut down that tree? You beat me to it, so you have "squatters" rights. If more than 2 people want a particular tree shouldn't they have to pay a tax?

Geez, you like abstract scenarios don't you. :wink:

I don't see many circumstances where two or more people want a particular tree. Even if it did occur I don't see how this relates to the issue. Can you restate what you're getting at?





zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

Like the natural land, water and soil are common rights. Society does not have the right to tell me I can't use it.

The sheers i either produced myself or bought from someone who did, therefore its my private property.

Quote: I cut a tree down on a plot of land and built my house upon it, is that not now my private property? Either way, you are depriving others of using that particular substance, be it water or land.

Not saying under a georgist society you wouldn't be able to deny others access to the natural land and water, you just have to pay a ground rent to do so.


zero18 wrote: So, if I produce private property, then why would I have to get rid of it?

Huh?

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: I found this claim curious:
MajorWoody wrote: Wrong, he who can hold onto the land is the rightful owner.

If the UN decided that the US is not the rightful owner of American land then they have every right to try and take it from the US and give it back to the Native American people.
Rightful? So, if I kill your family and claim your land, I'm a "rightful" owner? It may well be the case that I'm the defacto owner, but rightful? That's a bastardization of the term.
If there was no law and I was powerless to do anything then yes you would be the owner of my land. You only have things as long as you can keep them, that is why man created government, to give the populace a sense of protection from those more powerful than them.
Uh, you didn't answer the question. No doubt I would be the owner; I'm asking you if I'd be the rightful owner. In my mind, I clearly wouldn't be.

Rightful? In a way yes, in a way no:

Quote:
rightful
adj

1. Having a legally just claim.
2. Said of property, a privilege, etc: held by just right (noun 2).
3. Fair; just; equitable.


Without government anyone who could keep it, would have a "legally" just claim, due to there being no legality. But no, it would not be fair or just but to bring this back to the present day land ownership, he who purchases the land from another, legally owns. Our government says so.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: But rightfully? That's the issue at hand. Not what is, but what should be. A society built on injustice is doomed to failure. That's point of all this.
Didn't your mother ever tell you that life isn't fair? Or how about only the strong survive? We are only able to keep what we can protect, that is the sad truth.
No, it's not the sad truth. In a state of anarchy, it perhaps would be; fortunately, our ancestors established a government with the express intention to recognize rights, and secure them. From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Emphasis mine. The point of government is to secure rights; my point is that, in making land private property, our founding fathers inadvertently failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. It's a simple enough matter to correct; but first, the governed must recongnize this injustice.

You make my point, the only rights we have are those that we choose to secure and at the current point in time we choose to allow private citizens to purchase land.

What one calls injustice another calls liberty, it's just depends on your viewpoint. Some people clamour that not having socialized healthcare is an injustice, some feel that because others can afford higher education there is injustice but until you can convince the populace none of those will come to pass.


Major

[MajorWoody]

Don't have much time but wanted to reply to this one point;

Free Thinkr wrote: [What about humans? Can you own humans? If the laws allow it, does that somehow make it legitimate? The problem is that there is no basis for land ownership.

No, we can not own humans. Why? Because we as a nation decided it was wrong and fought to change those rights.

Legally, yes for around 80 years you could own a human being. Was that moral? Under my upbringings no, but morality is subjective and until the majority feels a certain way things will still be considered legal.

How about owning animals. Some view that as immoral and unjust. Are they right? In my opinion no but whose to say that in 100 years society will not look back at us and thing we are barbaric for keeping them as pets.

I agree that this is all a little philosophical but when people state that it one can not own land, that is purely subjective. In fact, I have my land deed in a safety deposit box that would beg to differ.


Major

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: No. Lumber and steel are not land, but products of labor (wealth). If it was the case that trees or iron ore were sufficiently rare to have a value (say you might be inclined to buy forest land or a section of land that contained an iron vein), you'd be taxed once, according to that value.

Ahh, so it takes this subjective meaning of "rarity" to decide what will be taxed?
It's not really subjective, as it's easily measured objectively: value. The value of naturally-occurring materials is a result of their rarity.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: You could ask whatever you like; whether or not you could sell it for that much would depend on what others are willing to pay. As far as acquiring the materials in the first place, any value that society was denied in the taking of the materials would be covered in a severance tax.
So, why aren't we just taxed once in the purchase of land?
Because you don't use it in the same sense. When I use a piece of iron ore, I transform it into something totally different; say a hammer or a car. When I use a piece of land, it's not so much the matter itself that I'm using, but the location. I'm not changing the location in any way, and the location is generally the source of value.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Take?

Puchase.
Claim. The only way a purchase of land can occur is by someone originally claiming the land.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Under the LVT, you'd pay a tax proportional to the land in its natural state. If you could get people to pay you in addition to that, that amount would determine the value of your "improvements."

Except, if someone wanted to put a highrise where my house was, my "improvements" would mean diddly.
Yeah. And? Perhaps someone would rather have the trees you cleared. There's no guarantee your labor will result in value; cue the oft-cited digging holes in the ground example.

Quote: And I thought the market decided what the land is worth? The natural state would never change, so shouldn't the tax always stay the same?
Really? So; if a field in the middle of Manhattan had somehow been left in its natural state, you're claiming that the value wouldn't have changed between the time Manhattan was settled and now? I don't think so.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The materials you used to create the shears will have been taxed upon extraction.

Why once? The materials will be removed from common use forever, not just at purchase, why not just tax the land once during extraction? Either way they are unusable to society.
Find me this magical pair of shears that lasts forever. Most shears are lucky to last 50 years. They, like you and me, will return to the earth soon enough.

[MajorWoody]

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: So, what makes your beliefs more correct than Marxists?

This is political philosophy, not a hard science, so I can't point to a fact and use that to explain why my beliefs are correct and why Marxism is wrong.

I do not accept Marxism because it denies private property and believe that individuals need the permission of society to use the elements around them.

I agree, it is a little too philosophical and I understand your point.

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: That is one of the arguments that a few people put out there a while ago; that people can not own land, now that is your opinion and you are entitled to that but I am entitled to my opinion and until you can convince the majority in a representative democracy the opinion that currently stands will continue to be law.

Having a majority doesn't make it truth.

No, but it can make it the law.


zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: What if I wanted to cut down that tree? You beat me to it, so you have "squatters" rights. If more than 2 people want a particular tree shouldn't they have to pay a tax?

Geez, you like abstract scenarios don't you. :wink:

I don't see many circumstances where two or more people want a particular tree. Even if it did occur I don't see how this relates to the issue. Can you restate what you're getting at?

My point is that if you take something from nature you are taking away others right to use it. Another on here is arguing that since trees are not scarce there is no need for you to pay society a tax for using it.

I was just trying to show you how something other than land could be considered a commodity. I agree it may not happen very often but this is one of those unintended consequences because some people may do that just for spite, or just to be obstinate. :twisted:

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

Like the natural land, water and soil are common rights. Society does not have the right to tell me I can't use it.

The sheers i either produced myself or bought from someone who did, therefore its my private property.

I cut a tree down on a plot of land and built my house upon it, is that not now my private property? Either way, you are depriving others of using that particular substance, be it water or land.

Not saying under a georgist society you wouldn't be able to deny others access to the natural land and water, you just have to pay a ground rent to do so.

Would you have to pay water rent too?

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: So, if I produce private property, then why would I have to get rid of it?

Huh?

Because the structures I was talking about would be able to be moved very easily and if the market priced me out of that land I would be forced to sell it, at someone else's "fair" price.


Major

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Uh, you didn't answer the question. No doubt I would be the owner; I'm asking you if I'd be the rightful owner. In my mind, I clearly wouldn't be.

Rightful? In a way yes, in a way no:

Quote:
rightful
adj

1. Having a legally just claim.
2. Said of property, a privilege, etc: held by just right (noun 2).
3. Fair; just; equitable.


Without government anyone who could keep it, would have a "legally" just claim, due to there being no legality. But no, it would not be fair or just
Exactly. It wouldn't be right. There is a right and a wrong, and right and wrong can be determined by logically following such premises as "all men are created equal." If all men are created equal, none should have the privilege of charging other for the use of the earth.

Quote: but to bring this back to the present day land ownership, he who purchases the land from another, legally owns. Our government says so.
Not 150 years ago, slavery was legal, but that didn't make it right. Legal? Sure. But not right.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: No, it's not the sad truth. In a state of anarchy, it perhaps would be; fortunately, our ancestors established a government with the express intention to recognize rights, and secure them. From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Emphasis mine. The point of government is to secure rights; my point is that, in making land private property, our founding fathers inadvertently failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. It's a simple enough matter to correct; but first, the governed must recognize this injustice.

You make my point, the only rights we have are those that we choose to secure and at the current point in time we choose to allow private citizens to purchase land.
When I say "rightful," I'm not talking about legal rights, but moral rights. We could be having this very discussion about owning slaves in 1850, and you'd be sitting there telling me that so-and-so was a rightful owner of his slaves. Not so, I say, as a man has no valid basis of ownership of another man. Same goes for land.

Quote: What one calls injustice another calls liberty, it's just depends on your viewpoint. Some people clamour that not having socialized healthcare is an injustice, some feel that because others can afford higher education there is injustice but until you can convince the populace none of those will come to pass.
Of course. This is why I am making such an effort to expose the injustice that is land ownership. I'd rather not see the US end up like Rome, with its latifundia. There is no valid excuse for claiming the very earth all humans must share; until we recognize this, we are doomed to failure.

[Free Thinkr]

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: So, what makes your beliefs more correct than Marxists?

This is political philosophy, not a hard science, so I can't point to a fact and use that to explain why my beliefs are correct and why Marxism is wrong.
Have you read The Science of Political Economy? There's no reason this can't be treated in a scientific manner; well, no reason other than defending land ownership, that is.

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Uh, you didn't answer the question. No doubt I would be the owner; I'm asking you if I'd be the rightful owner. In my mind, I clearly wouldn't be.

Rightful? In a way yes, in a way no:

Quote:
rightful
adj

1. Having a legally just claim.
2. Said of property, a privilege, etc: held by just right (noun 2).
3. Fair; just; equitable.


Without government anyone who could keep it, would have a "legally" just claim, due to there being no legality. But no, it would not be fair or just
Exactly. It wouldn't be right. There is a right and a wrong, and right and wrong can be determined by logically following such premises as "all men are created equal." If all men are created equal, none should have the privilege of charging other for the use of the earth.

Quote: but to bring this back to the present day land ownership, he who purchases the land from another, legally owns. Our government says so.
Not 150 years ago, slavery was legal, but that didn't make it right. Legal? Sure. But not right.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: No, it's not the sad truth. In a state of anarchy, it perhaps would be; fortunately, our ancestors established a government with the express intention to recognize rights, and secure them. From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Emphasis mine. The point of government is to secure rights; my point is that, in making land private property, our founding fathers inadvertently failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. It's a simple enough matter to correct; but first, the governed must recognize this injustice.

You make my point, the only rights we have are those that we choose to secure and at the current point in time we choose to allow private citizens to purchase land.
When I say "rightful," I'm not talking about legal rights, but moral rights. We could be having this very discussion about owning slaves in 1850, and you'd be sitting there telling me that so-and-so was a rightful owner of his slaves. Not so, I say, as a man has no valid basis of ownership of another man. Same goes for land.

Quote: What one calls injustice another calls liberty, it's just depends on your viewpoint. Some people clamour that not having socialized healthcare is an injustice, some feel that because others can afford higher education there is injustice but until you can convince the populace none of those will come to pass.
Of course. This is why I am making such an effort to expose the injustice that is land ownership. I'd rather not see the US end up like Rome, with its latifundia. There is no valid excuse for claiming the very earth all humans must share; until we recognize this, we are doomed to failure.

Just to put this out there before I go to bed:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote: The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Morality is subjective and must be agreed upon by a majority of the population before it becomes law.


Major

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Morality is subjective
Hence my asking you what you believed was right. Is someone that kills someone else and takes his land the rightful owner? I'm asking you a moral question.

Quote: and must be agreed upon by a majority of the population before it becomes law.
Well, duh. I don't think anyone here is arguing that law is magically set by law-gnomes. What I'm arguing is that the people, who determine law, do not recongize an injustice. That this state of affairs has occurred in the past is indisputable.

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote: fortunately, our ancestors established a government with the express intention to recognize rights, and secure them. From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Emphasis mine. The point of government is to secure rights; my point is that, in making land private property, our founding fathers inadvertently failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. It's a simple enough matter to correct; but first, the governed must recongnize this injustice.
...so the declaration recognizes that Rights came BEFORE government, and that the idea of government is ONE attempt to secure these Rights, correct? So there could (and are) be other methods of securing these Rights, starting with on an individual basis.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: fortunately, our ancestors established a government with the express intention to recognize rights, and secure them. From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Emphasis mine. The point of government is to secure rights; my point is that, in making land private property, our founding fathers inadvertently failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. It's a simple enough matter to correct; but first, the governed must recongnize this injustice.
...so the declaration recognizes that Rights came BEFORE government, and that the idea of government is ONE attempt to secure these Rights, correct? So there could (and are) be other methods of securing these Rights, starting with on an individual basis.

Where exactly do you think rights come from?

[MajorWoody]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: fortunately, our ancestors established a government with the express intention to recognize rights, and secure them. From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Emphasis mine. The point of government is to secure rights; my point is that, in making land private property, our founding fathers inadvertently failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. It's a simple enough matter to correct; but first, the governed must recongnize this injustice.
...so the declaration recognizes that Rights came BEFORE government, and that the idea of government is ONE attempt to secure these Rights, correct? So there could (and are) be other methods of securing these Rights, starting with on an individual basis.

Where exactly do you think rights come from?

I would say that we do not have rights until we fight for them, be it individually fight for them or by collectively fighting for them.

Is it your right to own a pet? Right now you could but maybe someday peta and alf will get their way and fight for the freedom of animals and take away your right to own a pet.


Major

[thintheherd]

zero18 wrote: thintheherd wrote: Didn't someone take this to it's logical conclusion and get lambasted for it just a bit ago?

You just reinforced the very same conclusion.

'Private ownership is for suckers and everything of importance is better served if controlled by the collective you call society.'

Get it right again did I? Now what does that remind me of.........?

Once again, geolibertarians do not believe society owns anything. Please research common rights.
I didn't say own, I said control. And in the context of an LVT this is entirely accurate.

zero18 wrote: Did you know that the founder of the Libertarian Party is a geolibertarian?
So? Who said I was a Libertarian or even cared?

[thintheherd]

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: So, what makes your beliefs more correct than Marxists?

This is political philosophy, not a hard science, so I can't point to a fact and use that to explain why my beliefs are correct and why Marxism is wrong.

I do not accept Marxism because it denies private property and believe that individuals need the permission of society to use the elements around them.
Isn't having to pay a fee to society, that society determines, for the right to 'hold' land a form of permission? If I cannot pay the fee I am not allowed to occupy that space (or deny the rights of others to as geo's would say).

As FT defines land, that would indeed include the 'elements' of that land.

Sounds like the two have a great deal in common to me.

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Morality is subjective
Hence my asking you what you believed was right. Is someone that kills someone else and takes his land the rightful owner? I'm asking you a moral question.

Morally, it is wrong but the real question is why?

Because society has defined it as wrong. It is not immoral to own land becuase society has yet to define it as such.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: and must be agreed upon by a majority of the population before it becomes law.
Well, duh. I don't think anyone here is arguing that law is magically set by law-gnomes. What I'm arguing is that the people, who determine law, do not recongize an injustice. That this state of affairs has occurred in the past is indisputable.

And I am telling you that what one person feels as an injustice is irrelevant until he has convinced society that there was an injustice.

Is owning pets an injustice in your opinion? Some feel that it is and that you just haven't recognized it yet.


Major

[Free Thinkr]

thintheherd wrote: zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: So, what makes your beliefs more correct than Marxists?

This is political philosophy, not a hard science, so I can't point to a fact and use that to explain why my beliefs are correct and why Marxism is wrong.

I do not accept Marxism because it denies private property and believe that individuals need the permission of society to use the elements around them.
Isn't having to pay a fee to society, that society determines, for the right to 'hold' land a form of permission?
No, it's a form of compensation.

Quote: If I cannot pay the fee I am not allowed to occupy that space (or deny the rights of others to as geo's would say).
Or, more accurately, he who pays the fee gets the privilege of occupying the space. Just like the two guys and one tree example: who gets to chop it? There must be a way of managing natural resources which is equitable for all. If people benefit unequally from nature, how could a meritocratic society result?

Quote: As FT defines land, that would indeed include the 'elements' of that land.
Of course. It includes all natural attributes of the land. We all have equal right to the use of nature's bounty.

Quote: Sounds like the two have a great deal in common to me.
I suspect you're not very familiar with either, then.

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: No. Lumber and steel are not land, but products of labor (wealth). If it was the case that trees or iron ore were sufficiently rare to have a value (say you might be inclined to buy forest land or a section of land that contained an iron vein), you'd be taxed once, according to that value.

Ahh, so it takes this subjective meaning of "rarity" to decide what will be taxed?
It's not really subjective, as it's easily measured objectively: value. The value of naturally-occurring materials is a result of their rarity.

I have five rocks and nobody wants them, is that rare?

I have 100 rocks and it has become a status symbol to wear rocks and 200 people want my rocks, is that rare?

I say it is subjective because while supply is not elastic, demand is and depends on the wants and needs of society.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: You could ask whatever you like; whether or not you could sell it for that much would depend on what others are willing to pay. As far as acquiring the materials in the first place, any value that society was denied in the taking of the materials would be covered in a severance tax.
So, why aren't we just taxed once in the purchase of land?
Because you don't use it in the same sense. When I use a piece of iron ore, I transform it into something totally different; say a hammer or a car. When I use a piece of land, it's not so much the matter itself that I'm using, but the location. I'm not changing the location in any way, and the location is generally the source of value.

Exactly, so if I take iron ore and make a hammer than I have taken away that persons ability to mine and make something he wants out of that ore. But with land, I take it and once I wish to sell it everyone has the opportunity to buy that land.

So wouldn't it be a greater injustice to society that I have taken that ore and made it to where noone else could ever use it?


Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Take?

Puchase.
Claim. The only way a purchase of land can occur is by someone originally claiming the land.

Agreed but I would add that they not only claimed that land but also was able to keep that land.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Under the LVT, you'd pay a tax proportional to the land in its natural state. If you could get people to pay you in addition to that, that amount would determine the value of your "improvements."

Except, if someone wanted to put a highrise where my house was, my "improvements" would mean diddly.
Yeah. And? Perhaps someone would rather have the trees you cleared. There's no guarantee your labor will result in value; cue the oft-cited digging holes in the ground example.

Exactly, which is why I don't like others determining how much my land is worth.

Under the current scenario, I own a piece of land. I put a house there and now someone wants it.

The offer me double what I paid for it, I then will be able to decide if that is worth what I put into it.

Under the LVT, if I think it is worth double it doesn't matter after five years a company would just price it out of what I could afford and someone else will compensate me for a "fair" amount. Once again decided by who? Appraisers that just see wood and mortar? Great :roll:

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: And I thought the market decided what the land is worth? The natural state would never change, so shouldn't the tax always stay the same?
Really? So; if a field in the middle of Manhattan had somehow been left in its natural state, you're claiming that the value wouldn't have changed between the time Manhattan was settled and now? I don't think so.

Oh, I agree the value has changed but why did you then state this:

Quote: Under the LVT, you'd pay a tax proportional to the land in its natural state.



Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The materials you used to create the shears will have been taxed upon extraction.

Why once? The materials will be removed from common use forever, not just at purchase, why not just tax the land once during extraction? Either way they are unusable to society.
Find me this magical pair of shears that lasts forever. Most shears are lucky to last 50 years. They, like you and me, will return to the earth soon enough.

Find me a person that will hold onto land forever. If I take wood and cut it down, how long will it take for that matter to be a tree again?

If I take land and chop all the trees down, how long will it take to grow all those trees back after I give up my deed to the land?

In both instances the value of the item is gone from society for only a while and after a person is done with it all others in society have the right to try and purchase it.


Major

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Morality is subjective
Hence my asking you what you believed was right. Is someone that kills someone else and takes his land the rightful owner? I'm asking you a moral question.

Morally, it is wrong but the real question is why?
It violates the golden rule. I wouldn't want you to kill my family and take my house, therefore it is wrong for me to do it to you.

Quote: Because society has defined it as wrong. It is not immoral to own land becuase society has yet to define it as such.
So, if you lived in Third Reich Germany it wouldn't be immoral to gas Jews, blacks, gays, or Gypsies? Again, I point to the fact that law doesn't always align with morality.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: and must be agreed upon by a majority of the population before it becomes law.
Well, duh. I don't think anyone here is arguing that law is magically set by law-gnomes. What I'm arguing is that the people, who determine law, do not recognize an injustice. That this state of affairs has occurred in the past is indisputable.
And I am telling you that what one person feels as an injustice is irrelevant until he has convinced society that there was an injustice.
I know what you're telling me. What you seem unable to grasp is that it's not an argument at all. Slavery was always wrong, for all of human history; whether it was one person, no people, or a million people that recognized the fact that it was wrong, it was always wrong. Pretending that that fact was irrelevant before slavery was outlawed is ridiculous; it was a horrible injustice that was very much relevant, and the fight to outlaw it was righteous.

1900 Me: "It's wrong that we don't allow women to vote."
1900 You: "It's not wrong unless society deems it to be!"
1900 Me: "Sigh. Why do you think we're having this discussion?"

[MajorWoody]

oops double post. :!oops:

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Morality is subjective
Hence my asking you what you believed was right. Is someone that kills someone else and takes his land the rightful owner? I'm asking you a moral question.

Morally, it is wrong but the real question is why?
It violates the golden rule. I wouldn't want you to kill my family and take my house, therefore it is wrong for me to do it to you.

If I gave you $100 would I be morally justified by expecting $100 later in life? If I hated my sisters and want them to be hung would I then be able to hang your sisters?


Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Because society has defined it as wrong. It is not immoral to own land becuase society has yet to define it as such.

So, if you lived in Third Reich Germany it wouldn't be immoral to gas Jews, blacks, gays, or Gypsies? Again, I point to the fact that law doesn't always align with morality.

But didn't you just agree with me that morals are subjective?

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: and must be agreed upon by a majority of the population before it becomes law.
Well, duh. I don't think anyone here is arguing that law is magically set by law-gnomes. What I'm arguing is that the people, who determine law, do not recognize an injustice. That this state of affairs has occurred in the past is indisputable.
And I am telling you that what one person feels as an injustice is irrelevant until he has convinced society that there was an injustice.
I know what you're telling me. What you seem unable to grasp is that it's not an argument at all. Slavery was always wrong, for all of human history; whether it was one person, no people, or a million people that recognized the fact that it was wrong, it was always wrong. Pretending that that fact was irrelevant before slavery was outlawed is ridiculous; it was a horrible injustice that was very much relevant, and the fight to outlaw it was righteous.

1900 Me: "It's wrong that we don't allow women to vote."
1900 You: "It's not wrong unless society deems it to be!"
1900 Me: "Sigh. Why do you think we're having this discussion?"

You have never quoted my pet analogy. I wonder why? Is it because you think it is silly and everyone should be able to own a pet? Because there is a large portion of people in the world that would disagree.

What makes your morals more right than theirs? (To answer this for you, it is because society as a whole agrees with you)


Major