Do these people never learn?! Frist backs Ban on Gay Marriage.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by GePap
It's his method. That whole "cut it up sentence by sentence" is annoying as heck, plus a good arguement is contructed in a whole paragraph, not sentence by sentence. And it makes the post itself huge.

A good argument is a good argument. But making a bunch of libertarian presumtions and using them to justify your libertarian point of view is never a good argument. Even if the guy could write a full paragraph.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

Several, I just don't have the numbers memorized

But you haven't quoted Jesus telling his followers to "tax" anyone, much less impose communism on others.

That "one group" would be the public. The public who elects the government. The government that creates property rights.

No, the "public" doesn't agree on tax policy, so at most, a plurality "elects" the government and an even smaller plurality "votes" on the enacted tax policy.

In the English common law system (our system sort of) property (in terms of land - and that's what counted back then) was distributed by the king, returned to the king on the owners death and returned to the king if you were treasonous (and there was a loose standard for that back then). The king and parliament gradually added things like alienablity, devisability (wills, inheritance), etc.

Kings preceded the idea of property?

Property is not natural, it is a pure creation of politics. But I argued this point successfully in another thread.

If property isn't natural, how do you explain that animals defend their own turf much more strenuously than when trying to take away the turf of other animals? Notice how dogs behave differently when defending their turf and when they are intruding on foreign turf? Property is merely an extension of self-determination/ownership/defense. "Whose life is it anyway"? That is where property comes from...

Well that's not really property is it? That was seizure by force of arms and your claim was only as good as your ability to take other comers.

The stuff you made prior to government wasn't really property? So if you made a dwelling, you'd just let anyone walk in and live there because property didn't exist?

You could fight tooth an nail, but before government you had no legal claim - laws are created by governments.

So murder didn't exist until government created it with a law? Natural rights stem from moral claims, not legal claims. If you were right, the Nazis stole nothing from German citizens when looting the property of their victims. Frederick Douglas called slavery "man-stealing", but according to you, it couldn't have been stealing because it was "legal".

If there is no regime to enforce your claim, how do you claim a right to something other than by force?

Why are we excluded from enforcing a moral claim to our property in the absence of government? Do you really need government approval to defend yourself from attack?

And if the only claim is force-based then the stronger guy will take it an it will be his.

Which has nothing to do with rights, i.e., moral claims of ownership. The claim is not force-based, the claim is morally-based, force may be necessary for it's preservation.

Also, you can't have theft before government. Theft is an unjustified taking of property where the terms 'unjustified' and 'property' are defined by government. No government, no theft. Do try to argue coherently.

So government invented "justice" too? If no theft existed prior to government, then maybe we should return to the days when no one stole anything.

Jesus was a religious leader, not a political leader. My point is that at best for you right wingers Jesus was indifferent to tax cuts. But Jesus also understood the importance of community, so I figure he would favor a community with good amounts of social spending.

In other words, you have no verse.

The point Jesus was making is that one should not be so concerned about material things. In other words, the money is Caesar's system (money, like property, is defined by government), a worldly system.

In one of his parables, Jesus said "is it not my right to do what I want with my money"? According to the communists, no.

No, just admitting I could be wrong.

You changed your argument from "right wingers" to Republicans.

GePap -

Don't you know templar that by answering in kind, you only encourage Bezerker's chop suey style of post gutting and answering?

Don't you know Gepap that by whining about me and not Templar, you're guilty of hypocrisy?

It's his method. That whole "cut it up sentence by sentence" is annoying as heck, plus a good arguement is contructed in a whole paragraph, not sentence by sentence. And it makes the post itself huge.

When someone makes several points in one paragraph, how do you propose I respond to those points in an effective manner so they don't get confused about which points I'm addressing? Of course, you could just change the channel...

Dinodoc -

I never really got why people are down on Berz. He always answers the relevent point from what I've seen.

Thank you. I wonder why these people don't run around complaining about everyone else who does the same thing. Hell, some of these people will copy and paste in debates and complain the moment I do the same thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hell, some of these people will copy and paste in debates and complain the moment I do the same thing.

I bet these people are the same kind that say 2 beer is ok, but 20 in one sitting is not! What hypocrites! .

GePap: 'chop suey style' . I think I'll steal that moniker for it now .

[Sava]

I concur with GePap... chop suey style is bad... and I must admit Berzerker, I rarely read those posts due to their length. I think your method discredits your arguments.

[JohnT]

I disagree. Berzerker's style makes it easier to track his arguments, and makes it less likely that he will run off in some irrelevant tangent.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

I bet these people are the same kind that say 2 beer is ok, but 20 in one sitting is not! What hypocrites! .

What would a thread be without Imran chiming in with his hypocritical whining? Templar offered 7 rebuttals and I responded with 12 and several of them were asking for clarification or repeating requests for facts.

Sava -

I concur with GePap... chop suey style is bad... and I must admit Berzerker, I rarely read those posts due to their length. I think your method discredits your arguments.

I know this hasn't occured to some of you, but I don't make my posts for you to read, I make them for the person I'm debating. And if they make 20 points in multiple paragraphs, I want to respond in such a way they will be able to tell which of their points I'm addressing. If you guys don't like it, don't ******* read my posts. I don't sit here b!tching and moaning about how you guys post. And Sava, claiming my arguments are discredited because I'm thorough is silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I disagree. Berzerker's style makes it easier to track his arguments, and makes it less likely that he will run off in some irrelevant tangent.

Tangents are all he does .

[Berzerker]

John T -

I disagree. Berzerker's style makes it easier to track his arguments, and makes it less likely that he will run off in some irrelevant tangent.

And thank you too. That's exactly why I do it, as a courtesy to the person I'm debating and to maintain a semblance of order. I prefer "parsing" as Imran calls it so the person I'm debating doesn't have to read through several paragraphs trying to figure out which, if any, of their points I'm addressing.

[David Floyd]

Templar,

Several, I just don't have the numbers memorized

In other words, none. And if you want to have a Bible competition, we can compete on verses all day long. Of course we'll both be taking them out of context, but I can find just as much "supporting" Libertarianism as you can find "supporting" any other position. But the fact of the matter is, Jesus wasn't concerned with this kind of thing.

That "one group" would be the public. The public who elects the government. The government that creates property rights.

Let's take this one a point at a time:

First of all, what about government which are not elected? Do these governments create property rights? If not, does property even exist in these systems?

Secondly, what you seem to be saying is that in an elective system, 51% of the people get to decide what property is, or what anything is. Are you making that claim?

In the English common law system (our system sort of)

Umm, no, this is not "sort of" our system. I will grant you that elements of our civil law are based upon English common law, but our system as a whole is based on the Constitution. You've heard of that, right? And the Constitution is based off of natural rights.

property (in terms of land - and that's what counted back then) was distributed by the king, returned to the king on the owners death and returned to the king if you were treasonous (and there was a loose standard for that back then). The king and parliament gradually added things like alienablity, devisability (wills, inheritance), etc.

So actually there WAS the concept of property - it all belonged to the King. It was all the King's property. Not morally, of course, but I'm just arguing YOUR point right now. So, then, property can't logically have come AFTER these kings, it had to exist BEFORE these kings, right?

But the Romans, Greeks, Indians, Egyptians, and everyone else before English common law pretty much did the same thing.

Same argument - property DID actually exist. The King just owned everything.

Property is not natural, it is a pure creation of politics.

If property is not natural, then slavery must be OK, right?

But I argued this point successfully in another thread.

And who exactly did you debate with? I can only imagine


Now, sorry to cut this off short, but I have to go see a movie. I'll be back later, don't worry

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

But you haven't quoted Jesus telling his followers to "tax" anyone, much less impose communism on others.

A communal property system fits in with Jesus's teaching. As I said, a sort of "fiscal communism".

No, the "public" doesn't agree on tax policy, so at most, a plurality "elects" the government and an even smaller plurality "votes" on the enacted tax policy.

True, but the community agrees their should be a tax policy, and the vast majority accept that the tax policy will involve actual taxes. It pays for things like education.

Kings preceded the idea of property?

Now, now. I said kings (William the Conquerer to be precise) invented our property system. Later Kings and parliaments gave non-king people more rights.

If property isn't natural, how do you explain that animals defend their own turf much more strenuously than when trying to take away the turf of other animals? Notice how dogs behave differently when defending their turf and when they are intruding on foreign turf? Property is merely an extension of self-determination/ownership/defense. "Whose life is it anyway"? That is where property comes from...

Yes, animals. So if a bunny digs a hole in your yard, does this mean you can't remove him/her without violating his/her property rights?

Animals are another example of taking things by force. The bunny only stays until you force it out. Yes a dog will defend it's territory but are you suggesting that a dog has some sort of right to its putative "property" that extends beyond his/her force to exclude others.

The whole point of private property is that the community respects some bundle of rights that you have with respect to some things. For instance, if you own a parcel of land you have the right to alienate (or sell), the right to devise (or will), and have the right to exclude others. You may even have the right to develop the land - but your right to develop is constrained by zoning regimes. Get it? The government defines and creates property - but all property is is your bundle of rights with respect to a thing.

The stuff you made prior to government wasn't really property? So if you made a dwelling, you'd just let anyone walk in and live there because property didn't exist?

Exactly. If you made a dwelling, and someone else came in and threw you out that dwelling became theirs. No courts/cops/officials mean no one to enforce any right you might have. Pure right of force. It sounds like you're trying to make some sort of Lockean labor theory argument here. Unfortunately, Locke was wrong.

So murder didn't exist until government created it with a law?

This will come as a suprise to you, but yes murder is to some extent a political construction. The most important dimension to murder is the moral dimension. But if you feel that killing enemy soldiers is justified, then the moral and legal dimensions to murder do not exist exclusively. Who defines the enemy? The state. Who allows - even encourages - soldiers to kill the enemy? The state. Now we could debate just war doctrine, but if you assume some form of the just war doctrine is true, then murder is to some extent a political construction.

Natural rights stem from moral claims, not legal claims. If you were right, the Nazis stole nothing from German citizens when looting the property of their victims. Frederick Douglas called slavery "man-stealing", but according to you, it couldn't have been stealing because it was "legal".

Don't confuse natual rights with legal definitions. Humans are a natural phenomena, property is a social construction. Moreover, I find it ironic that libertarians always think of slavery as a wrongful taking of one's property in one's self. It seems to me that slavery is best avoided by removing living beings from the relm of property entirely. The Nazis biggest crime wasn't a property crime. Nazis didn't steal Jews, they murdered Jews (morally, if not legally). I don't need to reduce people to property to protect their rights.

Why are we excluded from enforcing a moral claim to our property in the absence of government? Do you really need government approval to defend yourself from attack?

No government = no property. Ergo, no property = no moral claim to property

Which has nothing to do with rights, i.e., moral claims of ownership. The claim is not force-based, the claim is morally-based, force may be necessary for it's preservation.

Where does this moral claim come from?

So government invented "justice" too? If no theft existed prior to government, then maybe we should return to the days when no one stole anything.

Justice does not entail property. According to Rawls (the best US political philosopher) Justice means something like fairness. Now once a property system is imposed by the state, we can talk about the justice or fairness of the system. But if their is no property system, there is no question of justice in property terms.

You changed your argument from "right wingers" to Republicans.

You're right. That was an insult to right wingers.

[Sava]

I know this hasn't occured to some of you, but I don't make my posts for you to read, I make them for the person I'm debating. And if they make 20 points in multiple paragraphs, I want to respond in such a way they will be able to tell which of their points I'm addressing. If you guys don't like it, don't ******* read my posts. I don't sit here b!tching and moaning about how you guys post. And Sava, claiming my arguments are discredited because I'm thorough is silly.

awfully catty tonight, eh?

[MrFun]

It's scary and sad that we have such low people in high places.


Just when I thought we were making progress, someone has to try to make a law or an amendment to satisfy whatever bigotry they have.

Even if this will flunk out easily, it's sickening that we have such extremists -- extreme conservatives and extreme liberals need to be kicked out.

[David Floyd]

Well, I missed my movie, but to continue:

Well that's not really property is it? That was seizure by force of arms and your claim was only as good as your ability to take other comers. You could fight tooth an nail, but before government you had no legal claim - laws are created by governments.

This is essentially correct. There is obviously no legal claim without a law. But I'm not concerned with legal claims, rather moral ones.

And property is essentially a legal claim - not a right of force claim.

Property can be a legal claim, but at its root it is a moral claim. Property deals with the concept of "this is mine". This basically means that you either produced it, or bought it with your labor. Your labor must belong to you, unless you don't belong to yourself - that is to say, if you don't own your own labor or the products of your labor, then there can't be anything wrong with slavery.

If there is no regime to enforce your claim, how do you claim a right to something other than by force? And if the only claim is force-based then the stronger guy will take it an it will be his.

The claim is not forced-based, the claim is moral. A moral claim doesn't necessarily mean that in the real world, it'll overturn a force-claim, it just means that the force claim is wrong and the moral claim is right, for those of us keeping track.

Also, you can't have theft before government.

No, but you can have the abstract concept of theft before government. Taking something without permission is wrong, whether or not the government says so. You might not call it theft, but that doesn't really matter.

Theft is an unjustified taking of property

OK so far.

where the terms 'unjustified' and 'property' are defined by government.

No, in order for a property law to be moral, the terms "property" and "unjustified" must be based on something outside of legal definitions. Otherwise, when the Nazis looted Europe, or the Soviets stole private property, or when any country nationalizes an industry, it must be OK because the law doesn't say that it's either unjustified or private property.

Jesus was a religious leader, not a political leader. My point is that at best for you right wingers Jesus was indifferent to tax cuts.

Again, Jesus was not interested in politics. Now, Jesus was interested in morals, so he certainly would be against the Holocaust, for example, which is something that falls outside the realm of simple politics.

You do, by the way, agree with this concept that a government action can be immoral rather than just politics, right?

But Jesus also understood the importance of community,

Oh he absolutely did. But you will notice that NOWHERE does Jesus advocate a federal social program. He simply advocates charity and individuals helping each other, and there is nothing wrong with this.

If you're trying to argue that we should force people to "be good", ie, taxes, then how do you reconcile this with the fact that neither Jesus nor God force people not to sin?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
In other words, none. And if you want to have a Bible competition, we can compete on verses all day long. Of course we'll both be taking them out of context, but I can find just as much "supporting" Libertarianism as you can find "supporting" any other position. But the fact of the matter is, Jesus wasn't concerned with this kind of thing.

I'm thinking of the sermon on the mount, the temptations, the bit about Caesar and rendering. I'm too lazy to look the numbers up and the exact wording varies from translation to translation. I never said Jesus was a politician, just that his politics were left wing. I see Jesus voting for Jimmy Carter before Dubya.

And the text of the Gospel backs me up. If you are going to argue, you will probably bring in Paul's epistles. Every other right leaning Christian I've ever argued with does this. I don't argue Paul. Why? Because if Jesus is God as man, then why should I care what some guy's letters say?

First of all, what about government which are not elected? Do these governments create property rights? If not, does property even exist in these systems?

Yes. Property at English common law was a system imposed by force by William the Conquerer. This is also the genesis of our property system.

Secondly, what you seem to be saying is that in an elective system, 51% of the people get to decide what property is, or what anything is. Are you making that claim?

Depends on the system doesn't it. Our system frowns on destroying entitlements once they are assigned (i.e. the fifth amendment). Repeal the 5th Amendment, and yes, the majority can vote in the communists. Look at Cuba (revolution, not vote). If Castro extinguished your entitlements, what exactly are you going to do about it?

Umm, no, this is not "sort of" our system. I will grant you that elements of our civil law are based upon English common law, but our system as a whole is based on the Constitution. You've heard of that, right? And the Constitution is based off of natural rights.

In general (excluding things like copyrights and patents for example), states are allowed to define property within limits (i.e. no extinguishing an entitlement once it is created without paying just compensation). These definitions tend to pick up from the English common law system. Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estates, Executory Limitations, etc. are all ways of defining property that exist in most states and all of these go back to English common law.

So actually there WAS the concept of property - it all belonged to the King. It was all the King's property. Not morally, of course, but I'm just arguing YOUR point right now. So, then, property can't logically have come AFTER these kings, it had to exist BEFORE these kings, right?

Where does this morality thing come from with property? You can only talk about the morality of a system or morality within the system when it is created. You cannot talk about the morality of the execution of the system until it is executed.

If property is not natural, then slavery must be OK, right?

Slavery depends on a system of property. So your saying that slavery is OK if property is not natural? No property = no slavery. You have it exactly backwards.

And who exactly did you debate with? I can only imagine

MtG. And I'm sure he though he one the argument. The trouble is, it's very easy to win a circular argument. Like Berzerker, MtG started by assuming the basic principles of libertarianism and then justifying those very principles.

[David Floyd]

I'm thinking of the sermon on the mount, the temptations, the bit about Caesar and rendering.
I'm too lazy to look the numbers up and the exact wording varies from translation to translation.

Fortunately, I'm not that lazy.

Sermon on the Mount:
Matt. 5:3-11 essentially deals with rewards in heaven for certain types of people on earth. We cannot assume that this applies to people who are forced to "be good", because rewards in heaven, and indeed the status of salvation, revolve around the status of one's heart, as any Christian or Biblical scholar can tell you.

Matt 5: 13-16 are irrelevant verses for this discussion.

Matt 5:17-20 implies that there is a higher law than earthly law, which is certainly relevant to Libertarian principles in general.

Matt 5: 21-48 are largely irrelevant.

Matt 6:1-4 validates what I said above. "Be careful not to do your 'act of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward in the kingdom of heaven." What this is saying is that be righteous for it's own sake, not because you feel like you have to, or because others are watching. What this tells us is that Jesus doesn't care about a law forcing you to give to others, he simply wants you to give to others, and that what matters is the status of your heart.

Matt 6:19-24 is an argument for your case. Basically, these verses are telling us not to store up treasures on earth, and that one can't serve God and money. However, this can also be an argument the other way. Poor people should not expect others to be forced to give them money - this would be "storing up treasures on earth." If the giving is voluntary, then naturally Jesus wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as the giver does so quietly, without "announcing it with trumpets".

Matt 6: 25-34 basically say not to worry about clothing, or food, or tomorrow. Not hugely relevant to this discussion, although an argument can be made that this passage tells us to rely on God, not on the laws of men, to provide for us when we are needy.

Matt 7:1-6 aren't too relevant.

Matt 7:7-8 basically encourage us to ask God for what we need, and it will be provided.

Matt 7:9-12 encourage us to do to others as we would have them do unto us - this is basically the golden rule. However, the general theme of the Sermon on the Mount does not deal with laws and governmental force, but rather with individual action and charity, so one can only logically assume that this passage also refers to that.

Matt 7:13-23 are irrelevant.

Matt 7:24-27 again implies that the actions described in the Sermon on the Mount are and should be voluntary, especially verse 26, which states, "But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand." This is saying that there is a choice whether or not to do what Jesus is saying. If Jesus was advocating a law, then there would be no need for this passage about choice, because a law pretty much leaves no (legal) room for choice.

I never said Jesus was a politician, just that his politics were left wing. I see Jesus voting for Jimmy Carter before Dubya.

Jesus didn't have politics. As to whether he would vote for Jimmy Carter or Dubya, well, I'm not Jesus and neither are you. My guess is that he would do the same thing he did around 1 AD, and disassociate himself with the politics of the time.

And the text of the Gospel backs me up. If you are going to argue, you will probably bring in Paul's epistles.

Funny, I just argued using your own citation, or, rather, I provided the citation for your own vague point and argued from that.

I don't argue Paul. Why? Because if Jesus is God as man, then why should I care what some guy's letters say?

Well, because the Bible is the inspired Word of God - or at least, you should believe this if you are using the Bible to argue. If you don't actually believe the Bible, then don't use it to argue, because that's silly, but if you DO believe the Bible, then you should believe all of it, including the bits about it being the inspired Word of God.

Yes. Property at English common law was a system imposed by force by William the Conquerer.

So the point I was making was that in your view, a government does not have to be legitimately chosen by the people in order to make up property rights. That means that the Nazis' looting of Europe was perfectly legit.

Depends on the system doesn't it. Our system frowns on destroying entitlements once they are assigned (i.e. the fifth amendment). Repeal the 5th Amendment, and yes, the majority can vote in the communists.

Yes, people can vote in Communists, and yes, people with guns can take my property, but what does this have to do with the fundamental right to property. Again, unless you believe that the looting of Europe by the Nazis (or whatever else you wanna bring up) was perfectly legit, then you can't make the argument that property is the domain of government and nothing else.

Look at Cuba (revolution, not vote). If Castro extinguished your entitlements, what exactly are you going to do about it?

Defend my rights, I suppose.

In general (excluding things like copyrights and patents for example), states are allowed to define property within limits (i.e. no extinguishing an entitlement once it is created without paying just compensation).

That's a fancy way of saying you can't take something without paying for it. However, I believe the power of eminent domain is also illegit, because a moral transaction also has to have one more element - voluntary consent, not just "just compensation". I believe that the poewr of eminent domain was a mistake in the Constitution, and I'd love to abolish it.

These definitions tend to pick up from the English common law system. Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estates, Executory Limitations, etc. are all ways of defining property that exist in most states and all of these go back to English common law.

That's fine, but I'm never going to argue that the US government, or any state governments, behave morally.

Where does this morality thing come from with property? You can only talk about the morality of a system or morality within the system when it is created. You cannot talk about the morality of the execution of the system until it is executed.

Huh? You're saying that theft isn't wrong until a government comes along and says so, because the government defines theft?

Then the easy loophole for the government is to define theft as whatever is convenient at the time, and unless you are an absolutist, you can't really believe this, can you?

But if, in fact, the government doesn't have the power to define right and wrong at it's root level, then right and wrong must be defined some other way, right?

Slavery depends on a system of property.

No, slavery depends on you forcing me to labor for you, regardless of the government.

So your saying that slavery is OK if property is not natural?

No, I'm saying that if government defines property, then you can't say that slavery is wrong, because slavery is by definition legal.

MtG. And I'm sure he though he one the argument. The trouble is, it's very easy to win a circular argument. Like Berzerker, MtG started by assuming the basic principles of libertarianism and then justifying those very principles.

I've very rarely seen MtG debate moral principles, although I'll take your word for it. In any case, you're not arguing with MtG right now, you're arguing with myself and Berzerker, and our beliefs are significantly different from those of MtG, therefore you'll have a very different argument.