posted
I have been reading the "We the People" thread, and it is fascinating. I think you are doing a good job on it. I will chime in after this.
You know I am a Ron Paul supporter, generally on your side, and love to read threads you participate in.
I had a sincere question tho that I wanted to ask, but I knew it would derail the thread.
Kom was talking about how you could "move out of the way" if you don't like taxes. You responded by saying, "I don't see why I have the obligation to move out of the way. That's like telling people to move out of high crime areas rather than do something about the crime. It places the onus on the victim. That's not moral."
I'm with you. So far so good.
KoM responded by saing, "Well, I don't see why I should have to let you live in my area. I was here first, and what's more I have all the guns."
Ooo..this is getting juicy. I love debates. And then you confused me--only because I have read other threads.
quote: You aren't "letting me live" here. And you weren't here first. I was born here, and I own my home. More to the point, I own my life, and the product of that life. I own what I earn. Who are you to take it (any of it) from me?
I'm thinking of all the threads on Israel and Palestine. Honestly I just don't understand the area. I like Dr. Paul's solution for America to just not support Israel or any other country. After all, we give more money to Israel's enemies then to Israel.
I don't like our taxes being used for intervention in other countries.
Your response confused me. It sounds like you are saying that if you were born in a country and own your home, no one has a moral right to take it away. No one can claim to be there first. Are there no Palestinians that were born in Palestine and lived there their entire life?
By your logic, does that not mean no one has the right to take "any of it" away from them?
How does Israel laying claim to land that other people were currently living in not contradictory to your argument in the "We the People" thread?
I am not trying to be a provocateur, I just got confused. Like my opinion of Paul, I find you very consistent...VERY. This is the first time I read something from you that seemed contradictory to your philosophy.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not trying to argue, convince, or change anyone's mind. I just want to see the thought process. I only want to understand the thinking. I probably won't even respond unless I need something clarified for understanding purposes.
You don't have to chime in Lisa if you think this will turn into a dog pile. Or you could just email me from my profile name link.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that since God promised Israel to the Israelites, Lisa feels that the normal rules don't apply.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I beleive is that during the various Arab-Israeli wars many palistinians left the lands they occupied and these were taken over.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My understanding is that since God promised Israel to the Israelites, Lisa feels that the normal rules don't apply.
This is what I was referring to when I said "good luck."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You aren't "letting me live" here. And you weren't here first. I was born here, and I own my home. More to the point, I own my life, and the product of that life. I own what I earn. Who are you to take it (any of it) from me?
I'm thinking of all the threads on Israel and Palestine.
This can't possibly end well.
quote:Originally posted by lem: Honestly I just don't understand the area. I like Dr. Paul's solution for America to just not support Israel or any other country. After all, we give more money to Israel's enemies then to Israel.
I agree 100%.
quote:Originally posted by lem: Your response confused me. It sounds like you are saying that if you were born in a country and own your home, no one has a moral right to take it away. No one can claim to be there first. Are there no Palestinians that were born in Palestine and lived there their entire life?
By your logic, does that not mean no one has the right to take "any of it" away from them?
How does Israel laying claim to land that other people were currently living in not contradictory to your argument in the "We the People" thread?
I am not trying to be a provocateur, I just got confused. Like my opinion of Paul, I find you very consistent...VERY. This is the first time I read something from you that seemed contradictory to your philosophy.
I'll try and answer. And what's more, I'll try not to get too harsh when the Usual Suspects show up.
There are two answers, really, each coming from a different focus. One is God-centered, and one is Man-centered. The God-centered one, of course, is that our ownership is subordinate to God's greater ownership, as creator of everything. The same way that my daughter's ownership of her bedroom is subordinate to my actual ownership. And since God granted that land to us, it's ours, both by right and by obligation.
But that argument isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't accept the premises that (a) God exists, (b) God created everything, (c) God said that's our land. So let's focus on the other answer.
Consider these two scenarios. In one, I own property. I sell that property to someone else, or just up and abandon it. Other people move in. Their children are born there. Then I come back and say, "Everyone out. This is mine." Or I send the tax man and say, "This property implies a debt that you owe". That's KoM's thing, right?
In the other scenario, I own property. Someone comes along and physically forces me off that property. I protest, and continue protesting without any letup. Meanwhile, the person who forced me out, and other people who happen by, take up residence in my home. Their children are born there. I'm still protesting, but there's nothing I can do about it, because they outarm me, and there's government to protect me. At some later point, I find that I'm able to reassert my ownership of what was taken from me. Maybe I even decide that fighting isn't going to be productive, so I pay the current residents money for a small part of the property that's mine to begin with.
See the difference? It isn't the being born there that's the big deal. I used that as an example with KoM because he was claiming that I was the equivalent of a tresspasser. Had my parents (or theirs, or theirs, etc) gotten there on the backs of the true owners, he might have a point. But I was born here licitly. That's a big difference.
When we started coming back to Israel, we had no intention of dispossessing anyone who was living there. On the contrary, we paid exorbinant sums of money to buy land. We traded with the Arabs, and we created jobs that benefited them as much as they benefited us. But we never hid the fact that our goal was a national return. And that went against their political and philosophical and religious grain. Which was expressed with violence.
It's interesting. Take Gush Etzion, for example. The "Etzion Bloc" of settlements south of Jerusalem. This area was settled, without anyone being dispossessed, prior to 1948. When Israel declared independence and the armies of 6 Arab countries invaded, Gush Etzion was obliterated. Every single Jew was expelled.
What was the reaction of the Jews of the Gush? Did they create a Gush Etzion Liberation Organization and start blowing up Arab civilians? No. They rebuilt. There's a kibbutz by Ashkelon called Ein Tzurim. The original Ein Tzurim was in Gush Etzion. Now it's near Ashkelon, because the people who lived there rebuilt. And in 1967, when we were attacked again and captured the land that included Gush Etzion, we rebuilt there as well.
And consider the difference. The massacre of the Jews in the Gush, despite the fact that the people who lived there hadn't taken that land from anyone, versus the rebuilding of the Gush after we were attacked by people trying to wipe us out.
And more. I used to live in a town called Efrat. It's in Gush Etzion as well. I remember noticing a field of grapevines near the big mall in town. I asked a friend about it, and found out that it's a field that belongs to some Arabs. And despite the incessant war against us by the surrounding Arabs, we chose not to take that field away. Instead, the guys who till that field come in every day and do what they want. It's a patch of land in the middle of a Jewish town, that's owned by Arabs, and because it's owned by them, we respect that.
Here's the thing. Many of the Arabs left of their own free will, figuring that they'd just get out of the way while the Jews were massacred, and then they'd get a share of the spoils. It was a bad miscalculation on their parts, and I don't see why they should get it back. But even aside from that, I don't see a problem, from a libertarian point of view, in taking property away from someone who commits crimes. That's legitimate, in my view. I also recognize the right of individuals to freely associate themselves with groups, and if they do so, and that group commits crimes, and they continue their association, they can't claim that since they didn't personally commit those crimes, they are innocent.
Any Arabs who want to publically dissociate themselves from the Palestinian terrorist culture and accept, support, and pledge loyalty to the State of Israel... I don't really have a problem with them staying. But the rest of them are engaged in a war against us, and I think it's legitimate to give them the boot. Regardless of where they were born.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Any Arabs who want to publically dissociate themselves from the Palestinian terrorist culture and accept, support, and pledge loyalty to the State of Israel... I don't really have a problem with them staying. But the rest of them are engaged in a war against us, and I think it's legitimate to give them the boot. Regardless of where they were born.
Without taking a stand on either side (I never really have, beyond thinking that neither side is right in claiming their god gives them ownership), my real problem with the issues in Israel is that there doesn't seem a way out. Even if things happens as Lisa wants, it will just perpetuate the cycle of fighting. Which is not to say that Lisa is wrong or right in the matter.
Just that I wish the fighting would end, and barring the complete destruction of one of the groups involved (which would be morally unacceptable in my eyes), I don't see that happening.
posted
Didn't the whole Israel thing originally begin as a land ownership dispute, and only over the years become a religiously charged one?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are two answers, really, each coming from a different focus. One is God-centered, and one is Man-centered. The God-centered one, of course, is that our ownership is subordinate to God's greater ownership, as creator of everything. The same way that my daughter's ownership of her bedroom is subordinate to my actual ownership. And since God granted that land to us, it's ours, both by right and by obligation.
quote:See the difference? It isn't the being born there that's the big deal. I used that as an example with KoM because he was claiming that I was the equivalent of a tresspasser. Had my parents (or theirs, or theirs, etc) gotten there on the backs of the true owners, he might have a point. But I was born here licitly. That's a big difference.
You answered that very clearly and I understand better. Thank you. That's all I wanted. I *get* it.
Your right, not being Jewish I don't buy the God argument, but it is internally consistent. The licitness of ownership is also an interesting point that helped wipe away my confusion.
I'm satisfied. I also liked your historical perspective. I didn't really understand that there was an argument that the land was licitly obtained without needing to accept the faith. I thought it was ALL about being God's land. I had no idea some of it was sold voluntarily.
I don't claim to understand the situation enough to have the right answer or even pick a side. That area is too far removed from me. I do know enough of what I want from my country to support Ron Paul's position on Israel.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Consider these two scenarios. In one, I own property. I sell that property to someone else, or just up and abandon it. Other people move in. Their children are born there. Then I come back and say, "Everyone out. This is mine." Or I send the tax man and say, "This property implies a debt that you owe". That's KoM's thing, right?
It's not, actually, but since it's early in the morning and I'm not annoyed at my computer yet, I'll assume I was not explaining myself clearly. My thing is that you sell the property with a lien attached, a rider in the contract saying "and you have to obey these rules or the sale is void". My other thing is that this clause is so obvious that it doesn't actually get written down; it's understood by everyone who isn't making themselves willfully dense in order to avoid paying taxes.
quote:And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation, Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!
posted
Woah, wierd idea, why don't we just build a wall around the middle east? Not just a small wall but a huge 500 ft wall. (feel free to criticize me on my stupid ideas.)
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the undocumented aliens are busy building OUR border wall - it's going to be a while before they can get to building another one. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Woah, wierd idea, why don't we just build a wall around the middle east? Not just a small wall but a huge 500 ft wall. (feel free to criticize me on my stupid ideas.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
