Page 10 of 27 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 263

Thread: Time For Martial Law...

  1. #91
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,696
    Amen (Given)
    2167
    Amen (Received)
    5737
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles View Post
    Where, exactly, did he ground those rights in the God of the bible, seer?
    Start here on property rights:https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/jo...treatises-1689

    §. 25 we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. CXV. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity. But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.

    [216]
    §. 26.↩
    God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho’ all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. The fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no inclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i. e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life.

    §. 27.↩
    Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something [217] that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

    §. 28.↩
    He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God [218] had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

    §. 31.↩
    It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us [220] property, does also bound that property too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders; and to how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself, and ingross it to the prejudice of others; especially keeping within the bounds, set by reason, of what might serve for his use; there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.

    §. 32.↩
    But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the earth, and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself; as that which takes in and carries with it all the rest; I think it is plain, that property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to it; and therefore he [221] cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i. e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  2. #92
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    64,532
    Amen (Given)
    13983
    Amen (Received)
    28844
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    If "property rights" were not an issue in the Bible, there'd be no need for the commandment that tells us not to steal.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  3. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  4. #93
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,696
    Amen (Given)
    2167
    Amen (Received)
    5737
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    If "property rights" were not an issue in the Bible, there'd be no need for the commandment that tells us not to steal.
    Right, it all goes back to that in Western law.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  5. #94
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,375
    Amen (Given)
    1314
    Amen (Received)
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Sorry, seer, but none of that shows exactly what you think it shows. You seem to infer that because Locke mentions God now and then in the text he is refering to devine law. It seems you have missed the basic distinction between divine and natural law in Locke's philosophy.

    That is a very important distinction. I will refer you to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

    Perhaps the most central concept in LockeÂ’s political philosophy is his theory of natural law and natural rights.
    Natural law is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God’s special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and whom God specifically indicates are to be bound. Thus some seventeenth-century commentators, Locke included, held that not all of the 10 commandments, much less the rest of the Old Testament law, were binding on all people.
    Emphasis mine.

    Here is a rather short but quite telling passage about it:

    As we will see below, even though Locke thought natural law could be known apart from special revelation, he saw no contradiction in God playing a part in the argument, so long as the relevant aspects of God’s character could be discovered by reason alone. In Locke’s theory, divine law and natural law are consistent and can overlap in content, but they are not coextensive. Thus there is no problem for Locke if the Bible commands a moral code that is stricter than the one that can be derived from natural law, but there is a real problem if the Bible teaches what is contrary to natural law.
    Emphasis mine.

    Again, here is a short passage about the complexity of it:

    With respect to the grounds and content of natural law, Locke is not completely clear. On the one hand, there are many instances where he makes statements that sound voluntarist to the effect that law requires a law giver with authority (Essay 1.3.6, 4.10.7). Locke also repeatedly insists in the Essays on the Law of Nature that created beings have an obligation to obey their creator (Political Essays 116–120). On the other hand there are statements that seem to imply an external moral standard to which God must conform (Two Treatises 2.195; Works 7:6). Locke clearly wants to avoid the implication that the content of natural law is arbitrary.
    Emphasis mine.

    So, it is a lot more complicated that finding a number of places where he mentions God. And I also note that what you did was to only quote the text and did not engage in any interpretation of it.

    All qotes from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh
    Last edited by Charles; 06-03-2020 at 11:07 AM.
    "That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right." Michael Gerson

  6. #95
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,696
    Amen (Given)
    2167
    Amen (Received)
    5737
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles View Post
    Sorry, seer, but none of that shows exactly what you think it shows. You seem to infer that because Locke mentions God now and then in the text he is refering to devine law. It seems you have missed the basic distinction between divine and natural law in Locke's philosophy.
    What is your point? That doesn't change anything I said. Locke does not merely mention God he grounds property rights in God, from your link.

    There have been some attempts to find a compromise between these positions. Michael Zuckert’s version of the Straussian position acknowledges more differences between Hobbes and Locke. Zuckert still questions the sincerity of Locke’s theism, but thinks that Locke does develop a position that grounds property rights in the fact that human beings own themselves, something Hobbes denied. Adam Seagrave has gone a step further. He argues that the contradiction between Locke’s claim that human beings are owned by God and that human beings own themselves is only apparent. He bases this argument on passages from Locke’s other writings (especially the Essay Concerning Human Understanding). In the passages about divine ownership, Locke is speaking about humanity as a whole, while in the passages about self-ownership he is talking about individual human beings with the capacity for property ownership. God created human beings who are capable of having property rights with respect to one another on the basis of owning their labor. Both of them emphasize differences between Locke’s use of natural rights and the earlier tradition of natural law.



    Locke believed that makers have property rights with respect to what they make just as God has property rights with respect to human beings because he is their maker. Human beings are created in the image of God and share with God, though to a much lesser extent, the ability to shape and mold the physical environment in accordance with a rational pattern or plan.

    On Dunn’s interpretation, Locke’s state of nature thinking is an expression of his theological position, that man exists in a world created by God for God’s purposes but that governments are created by men in order to further those purposes.
    And:

    Pre-political is the state of nature which arises before any form of political authority. Thus, in a sense, Locke’s natural rights are similar to contemporary human rights.
    However, there is an important distinction to draw. Natural rights are prior to moral and cultural conventions. (Paul Kelly) Locke’s whole line of argument on natural rights rests upon the assumption that even without moral and cultural conventions, and rights occurring in the state of political authority, human beings would still have some natural rights that are binding.

    "For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure." — John Locke

    According to Locke we are all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker. So what further makes those rights natural is that we are all entitled to them since we do not own ourselves but are the property of God. Locke appeals to what human beings have in common rather than what makes them different.

    https://medium.com/patrickdaniel/wha...t-80feecdaaa27

    Full quote:

    But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
    Last edited by seer; 06-03-2020 at 11:43 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  7. #96
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,375
    Amen (Given)
    1314
    Amen (Received)
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    What is your point? That doesn't change anything I said. Locke does not merely mention God he grounds property rights in God, from your link.

    [...]
    My point is you have missed a basic distinction in your reading and now you just continue to do so. And, as I pointed out to you:

    On the other hand there are statements that seem to imply an external moral standard to which God must conform (Two Treatises 2.195; Works 7:6). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh
    So you can ignore the distinction and the fact that it is not as simple as you present it. That, however, does not change reality. And, like I also pointed out, the God refered to is not necessarily the God of the Bible like you claimed. Again, I will have to repeat:

    Natural law is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God’s special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and whom God specifically indicates are to be bound. Thus some seventeenth-century commentators, Locke included, held that not all of the 10 commandments, much less the rest of the Old Testament law, were binding on all people. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh
    And if you still don't see it, I repeat, once again:

    As we will see below, even though Locke thought natural law could be known apart from special revelation, he saw no contradiction in God playing a part in the argument, so long as the relevant aspects of God’s character could be discovered by reason alone. In Locke’s theory, divine law and natural law are consistent and can overlap in content, but they are not coextensive. Thus there is no problem for Locke if the Bible commands a moral code that is stricter than the one that can be derived from natural law, but there is a real problem if the Bible teaches what is contrary to natural law. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh
    So, like I wrote, a lot more complex so my point was your reading of Locke was a simplification. It seems it has remained so.
    "That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right." Michael Gerson

  8. #97
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,696
    Amen (Given)
    2167
    Amen (Received)
    5737
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles View Post
    My point is you have missed a basic distinction in your reading and now you just continue to do so. And, as I pointed out to you:



    So you can ignore the distinction and the fact that it is not as simple as you present it. That, however, does not change reality. And, like I also pointed out, the God refered to is not necessarily the God of the Bible like you claimed. Again, I will have to repeat:



    And if you still don't see it, I repeat, once again:



    So, like I wrote, a lot more complex so my point was your reading of Locke was a simplification. It seems it has remained so.
    Charles you are missing the point. According to Locke WHY do we have rights in the first place?
    "But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
    And of course Locke was speaking of the God of the Bible, he quotes the Bible all the way through starting with Adam. And he did write the "Reasonableness of Christianity."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejand.../#394dc56f66b3
    Last edited by seer; 06-04-2020 at 03:29 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  9. #98
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,375
    Amen (Given)
    1314
    Amen (Received)
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Charles you are missing the point. According to Locke WHY do we have rights in the first place?


    And of course Locke was speaking of the God of the Bible, he quotes the Bible all the way through starting with Adam. And he did write the "Reasonableness of Christianity."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejand.../#394dc56f66b3
    Sorry, seer, you are still missing the very basic point and it seems whatever you provide to try to prove me wrong still indicates that you continue to miss it. No one denies that Locke mentions God, and even the God of the Bible. What you fail to see, and what I have showed you several times now, is that his thinking is far more complex than you are seemingly capable of understanding since he is both talking about natural rights and devine rights and some of his thinking even suggests he reasoned along the lines of there being a moral standard that even God would have to follow. So, far more complex. So, you can underline this singular pieces here and there, it wont help much since we are talking about something far more complex.

    Nothing in what I have pointed out is contradicted by the fact that Locke quotes the Bible. Hint: we are talking about both natural and divine rights. And Locke can even quote the Bible without it showing that ha bases the rights in the God of the Bible. You are jumping to some very fast conclusions, seer. If you read it all again, you will see that it adds up.
    "That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right." Michael Gerson

  10. #99
    tWebber whag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,522
    Amen (Given)
    510
    Amen (Received)
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Then what will stop the carnage?
    Don’t use the word “carnage” unless you know what it means.

  11. #100
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,696
    Amen (Given)
    2167
    Amen (Received)
    5737
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles View Post
    Sorry, seer, you are still missing the very basic point and it seems whatever you provide to try to prove me wrong still indicates that you continue to miss it. No one denies that Locke mentions God, and even the God of the Bible. What you fail to see, and what I have showed you several times now, is that his thinking is far more complex than you are seemingly capable of understanding since he is both talking about natural rights and devine rights and some of his thinking even suggests he reasoned along the lines of there being a moral standard that even God would have to follow. So, far more complex. So, you can underline this singular pieces here and there, it wont help much since we are talking about something far more complex.
    You are clueless Charles, you just said: "the God refered to is not necessarily the God of the Bible" but now you say that no one denies that it is the God of the bible. And I never said his arguments were not nuanced. My last reference shows that he did in fact ground rights in God. And my point was that Locke influenced the Founders: 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. This idea did not come out of whole cloth, it was influenced by Christian thinkers like Locke, Blackstone and Rutherford.

    Nothing in what I have pointed out is contradicted by the fact that Locke quotes the Bible. Hint: we are talking about both natural and divine rights. And Locke can even quote the Bible without it showing that ha bases the rights in the God of the Bible. You are jumping to some very fast conclusions, seer. If you read it all again, you will see that it adds up.
    Are you daft?

    "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."

    Why should I not harm you or take your property?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •