User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 93

  1. #81
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    just because religion has reference to property doesn't mean the concept didn't exist beforehand.

    you really think in tribal days people would just be cool with other people taking their shit? even if it wasn't written down, it was obviously an implicit rule.

    weren't there tribal wars over land? don't you think people fought over who got to eat the tribe's kill first?

    if protecting resources isn't natural...well...

    that just doesn't make any sense. it's ludicrous.



    say you make a bow; it takes you a few weeks, and you're proud. then say your tribe-mate just walks over and takes it. you don't think you'd have a negative response? you don't think you'd want it back? you don't think you'd think it was unfair?

  2. #82
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    just because religion has reference to property doesn't mean the concept didn't exist beforehand.

    you really think in tribal days people would just be cool with other people taking their shit? even if it wasn't written down, it was obviously an implicit rule.

    weren't there tribal wars over land? don't you think people fought over who got to eat the tribe's kill first?

    if protecting resources isn't natural...well...

    that just doesn't make any sense. it's ludicrous.

    say you make a bow; it takes you a few weeks, and you're proud. then say your tribe-mate just walks over and takes it. you don't think you'd have a negative response? you don't think you'd want it back? you don't think you'd think it was unfair?
    If you need to understand the concept of property before the religious concept of property was introduced, then look to the old Native American tribes. I already explained in that post how it was different. And I also already explained the difference between an evolutionary "territory market" and a free market. Since it is clearly evident you haven't read anything I have posted, I will repost if for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    From a logical standpoint, it is apparent that conflict is inevitable based on our need to compete for limited space and resources, and ultimately the most successful animals are those which form cohesive groups and acquire territory by force. Much like America has done. In essence, an "evolutionary" market is the opposite of a free market, because the former requires coercion or force and the latter is dependent upon an ethical implicit agreement to respect the concept of "property". As such, I believe capitalism and the free market are constructs meant to abate the evolutionary course for a world that favors individuals. This seems highly counterintuitive since individuals are still prone to follow the evolutionary course and form cohesive groups which will conquer via coercion and force unless they are compelled by moral or ethical reasons not to do so. Therefore, the free market and capitalism are probably theological constructs based on a religious/ethical driven desire to respect the concept of property.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    The inherent idea of property was different with American Indians. For one, it wasn't "your bow, your arrow, your tent" it was "the bow, the arrow, the tent." Study just about any Native American language and you quickly find a lacking in possessive pronouns. The value in items was only in whatever you could trade for them. Individuals did not possess things in and of themselves and it would have been very rude to refuse a fair trade. You only "owned" things in the sense that you hadn't traded them yet. Not to mention they had absolutely no concept of owning land. The territorial concepts were like the evolutionary market I described in my earlier post, not anything like the free market principles that rely on a concept of property.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo
    Exactly, the idea of property began as a God ordained concept, "a lord and his land", and has subsequently become an ethical right, mostly through the philosophies of the Enlightenment. However, whether you want to view it as "God ordained" or a "natural right" the fundamental idea is still theological.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    "Thou shall not steal" -1300 BC from the Ten Commandments.

    The first ever "legal" protection for property.

    The exception being Pharaohs and Sumerian rulers who, none the less, were seen as deities.

    Property was normally associated with royalty and the god ordained right to rule over the land and all its people. "Thou shall not steal" established the penalty of eternal damnation for anyone who would dare forcefully take something from someone else and basically overthrew the evolutionary concept of property.

    So I continue my argument, property is a theological construct and capitalism and the free market are based upon it, thereby making them theological constructs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #83
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    fine, even if i give you that argument, the whole tribe as a unit had property that they defended from other tribes (or traded with).

  4. #84
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    I don't see why the ten commandments documenting a common human principle (don't take someone else's stuff) makes it something constructed by religion. It's just evidence for it already existing at that period in history.

  5. #85
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    fine, even if i give you that argument, the whole tribe as a unit had property that they defended from other tribes (or traded with).
    Exactly, which was the evolutionary concept of territory and resources, not the theological concept of property. As I said, it is the inherent nature of humans to take those things via force and coercion, but because of the implicit ethical agreement to respect the concept of "property" they don't do so as often in a free market.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #86
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    I don't see why the ten commandments documenting a common human principle (don't take someone else's stuff) makes it something constructed by religion. It's just evidence for it already existing at that period in history.
    Dude! Define property! It is the legal protection of ownership. The first law, "Thou shall not steal" was the creation of the concept of property as we know it. Before that, it was territory and resources, and there was no law or moral code to govern it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #87
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Dude! Define property! It is the legal protection of ownership. The first law, "Thou shall not steal" was the creation of the concept of property as we know it. Before that, it was territory and resources, and there was no law or moral code to govern it.
    Eh? What makes you think there was no law or moral code before then.

    Can I politely suggest you read up on the history of law?

    Here's a clue : the code of Hammurabi. That's much earlier, it isn't religious in form (although as is normal for such times it claims religious inspiration - that's how things were done). it's state law, though. Oh, and it covers property. And it probably isn't the first, it's just one of the first we know about!

  8. #88
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Eh? What makes you think there was no law or moral code before then.

    Can I politely suggest you read up on the history of law?

    Here's a clue : the code of Hammurabi. That's much earlier, it isn't religious in form (although as is normal for such times it claims religious inspiration - that's how things were done). it's state law, though. Oh, and it covers property. And it probably isn't the first, it's just one of the first we know about!
    What are talking about? Hammurabi's code was an eye for an eye. There was no concept of property within that code. Of course, go ahead and prove me wrong.

    Not to mention...

    Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BC – 1750 BC) believed that he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land."
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #89
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    What are talking about? Hammurabi's code was an eye for an eye. There was no concept of property within that code. Of course, go ahead and prove me wrong.
    Hey, simmer down, kiddo. I'm trying to help you discover something about human history, not attack you. I've spent a fair time on history of law as part of my legal studies (few years ago now). As it happens, I went to see the magna carta last week, which was fun, too!

    Anyway,the HC is most enlightening, and like I said, not the first.

    There's plenty of property ownership principles in it :

    No.36

    "The field, garden, and house of a chieftain, of a man, or of one subject to quit-rent, can not be sold."

    No 30

    " If a chieftain or a man leave his house, garden, and field and hires it out, and some one else takes possession of his house, garden, and field and uses it for three years: if the first owner return and claims his house, garden, and field, it shall not be given to him, but he who has taken possession of it and used it shall continue to use it. "

    125

    " If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and there, either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property of the other man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect the loss took place, shall compensate the owner for all that was given to him in charge. But the owner of the house shall try to follow up and recover his property, and take it away from the thief. "

    If this isn't early property law, then I'm a Bonobo's Uncle.

  10. #90
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Hey, simmer down, kiddo. I'm trying to help you discover something about human history, not attack you. I've spent a fair time on history of law as part of my legal studies (few years ago now). As it happens, I went to see the magna carta last week, which was fun, too!

    Anyway,the HC is most enlightening, and like I said, not the first.

    There's plenty of property ownership principles in it :

    No.36

    "The field, garden, and house of a chieftain, of a man, or of one subject to quit-rent, can not be sold."

    No 30

    " If a chieftain or a man leave his house, garden, and field and hires it out, and some one else takes possession of his house, garden, and field and uses it for three years: if the first owner return and claims his house, garden, and field, it shall not be given to him, but he who has taken possession of it and used it shall continue to use it. "

    125

    " If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and there, either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property of the other man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect the loss took place, shall compensate the owner for all that was given to him in charge. But the owner of the house shall try to follow up and recover his property, and take it away from the thief. "

    If this isn't early property law, then I'm a Bonobo's Uncle.
    Very well, and it's still "divinely inspired" and written by a "God ordained king". I have made my case. Property is a theological construct, and since the free market and capitalism are also, they are also theological constructs. Can you prove me wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

Similar Threads

  1. Pew Research: The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-26-2015, 10:04 PM
  2. Types and Religion.
    By RealityDeviantPride in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 09:54 PM
  3. [NF] NFs and religion
    By Cordiform in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-01-2007, 02:15 PM
  4. The Australian Election and Religion
    By darlets in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-13-2007, 05:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO