quote:If I steal a hammer, and use it to build a building, the building is still mine. I owe the hammer to the real owner, and I owe whatever damages will cover the fact that the owner was deprived of the hammer for the amount of time that I had it. I don't owe him the building.
Extending your example, if you force someone at gunpoint to build you a house, then you owe him the house, plus perhaps reparations for the use he might otherwise have made of his time; but you do not owe him any profit you make from business meeting held in the house; correct?
quote:I hadn't even been thinking of the idea of slave reparations, but while I think that heavy reparations should have been paid to actual slaves, I don't for a second think that such a debt is hereditary. Nor that it is some sort of "societal debt". My family wasn't even in the US at the time that there were slaves, for example. And I suspect there are no remaining slaves, either.
Well, that brings up an interesting point : Are other debts hereditary? Indeed, what is your take on inheritance generally? It seems to me that there is an absolute right to dispose of your property before your death; you can give it to your children, fling it in the sea, or have a potlatch party. Right? So, it seems that you should also have a perfect right to dispose of your property in a will. But people do die without making their wills; in such a case, is it not reasonable to assume that they will gift their property to their children? At any rate, that's been the going assumption for some centuries, and I see no immediate need to change it.
So, given all this, it seems that a debt must also be hereditary, yes? A debt is nothing but property you have temporarily given away, on the definite understanding that it will be returned. And if you grant that, then why should not reparations for slavery be inheritable? It's a debt; it was not paid to the original creditors. Why is it different from any other debt?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I steal a hammer, and use it to build a building, the building is still mine. I owe the hammer to the real owner, and I owe whatever damages will cover the fact that the owner was deprived of the hammer for the amount of time that I had it. I don't owe him the building.
Extending your example, if you force someone at gunpoint to build you a house, then you owe him the house, plus perhaps reparations for the use he might otherwise have made of his time; but you do not owe him any profit you make from business meeting held in the house; correct?
I don't think so. First of all, a person isn't a hammer. There are criminal issues here, and not only civil ones. But simply on the level of what you owe civilly, you'd owe him for the time you took from him, in which he could have been doing other things. Why would the house be his? You kidnapped him, which is wrong, and you forced him to work, which is wrong, but the materials are yours, and the house, I would say, is yours as well.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I hadn't even been thinking of the idea of slave reparations, but while I think that heavy reparations should have been paid to actual slaves, I don't for a second think that such a debt is hereditary. Nor that it is some sort of "societal debt". My family wasn't even in the US at the time that there were slaves, for example. And I suspect there are no remaining slaves, either.
Well, that brings up an interesting point : Are other debts hereditary?
I can't see why they should be. I mean, I can see an heir paying back his father's debt. I would consider that to be praiseworthy. But I can't see any justification for making it obligatory.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed, what is your take on inheritance generally? It seems to me that there is an absolute right to dispose of your property before your death; you can give it to your children, fling it in the sea, or have a potlatch party. Right? So, it seems that you should also have a perfect right to dispose of your property in a will. But people do die without making their wills; in such a case, is it not reasonable to assume that they will gift their property to their children? At any rate, that's been the going assumption for some centuries, and I see no immediate need to change it.
I don't know. I've never given it much thought.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, given all this, it seems that a debt must also be hereditary, yes? A debt is nothing but property you have temporarily given away, on the definite understanding that it will be returned. And if you grant that, then why should not reparations for slavery be inheritable? It's a debt; it was not paid to the original creditors. Why is it different from any other debt?
Inheritance is a gift. I can accept it or not, as I see fit. Similarly in the case of the kind of debt you're talking about. If I want to take it on, I can. But I don't have to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is very important to note that Smith's argument on labor does not afford it any intrinsic value.
quote:EVERY man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.
This part in particular is worth paying attention to. The labor of a person is only valuable insofar as it allows one to "exchange it for other commodities". That is not an intrinsic value, but a value derived from context.
And Smith is quite correct about the existence of that formulation, though he is incorrect in viewing it as the definitive formulation, it is merely one way of viewing transactions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Give to him (the poor person) what is his, because you and yours are His (God's).
That is, you are merely a steward of any wealth God has allowed you to amass. You do not actually OWN anything, and by failing to give money or goods to whoever God wants you to give them to, you are actually stealing from them.
Almost. Rabbinic literature sees two frames of reference. These are called "dinei Adam" and "dinei Shamayim". Basically, these are our frame of reference and God's frame of reference.
In God's frame of reference, we own nothing. How can we? We're merely His creations. He owns everything. L'Hashem ha-aretz u-melo'o.
And yet, God instituted the concept of ownership for us between one another. In our frame of reference, property exists. In His, it does not.
Since God is the real owner of everything (including you and me and Rabbit), He's entitled to tell us that we have to give some of what is ours to others. I don't have any problem with that. But that privilege doesn't extend to the government. Back in the days of divine rights of kings, it was pretty much the same thing. We've grown up since then.
And think about this, Rivka. If I give a dollar to a poor person out of hesed, is that better or worse than giving that same dollar to a poor person at gunpoint? As philanthropic as people are, and they are; billions and billions of dollars of charitable contributions are given every year, it's nothing compared to how people behaved before the government started getting involved.
Hospitals used to be created by people because there was a need for it. Now corporations build them for the profit, or governments build them.
If 10% of what I make goes to poor people (I don't know that the number is correct), how much better would it be for me to give that amount myself? When the government forces us to give, they rob us of the opportunity to give ourselves. The society we have now is, in part, a result of that.
Regardless, comparing not giving to stealing is something you've introduced yourself. There's no way on Earth you can pull that out of the sources you're citing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I believe we are looking at opposite sides of the inheritance thing. You are thinking that you should not inherit your father's debt, and that's reasonable enough; there have been quite nasty examples of what happens if that's allowed. But I am thinking that you should inherit the debts of others to him; otherwise, in principle, you would not inherit the contents of his bank account.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would the house be his? You kidnapped him, which is wrong, and you forced him to work, which is wrong, but the materials are yours, and the house, I would say, is yours as well.
It seems to me that this lets the criminal profit by his crime; I do think, on the criminal side of the law, the house should be confiscated and perhaps given to the victim. In fact, even on the civil side, I think I would prefer to give the victim the house, and let him pay for the materials out of whatever he realises in selling it; with a generous time limit. Otherwise, you might have the situation of a criminal who's happy to pay for the labour at the market rate (and what else is a court going to impose?) because the marginal value of the house is much larger to him; and he's willing to gamble on not getting caught. If he gets caught, fine, he pays for the labour - oh well. If not, splendid, he got the house for free. I think you want to avoid that kind of incentive.
But these are niggling details to be settled by a court, I think.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lisa, I believe we are looking at opposite sides of the inheritance thing. You are thinking that you should not inherit your father's debt, and that's reasonable enough; there have been quite nasty examples of what happens if that's allowed. But I am thinking that you should inherit the debts of others to him; otherwise, in principle, you would not inherit the contents of his bank account.
That's true. But the debt would have to be established prior to his death. Otherwise, we could all sit down with our history books and try to find potential debts from the past.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes and no. There are two ways a debt can be incurred. One is if you agree to accept a debt, and the other is if the court imposes a debt on you.
How can a court impose a debt on you? For one thing, you'd have to go to the court and petition for it. Nowadays, we have the concept of not having to press charges. You know, a crime against the state, where even if you don't press charges, the state can go ahead and prosecute someone anyway. But a victim never gets redress in a situation like that. You only get recompense in a civil court. And that requires someone to actually go to court and demand it.
You can't come along later and say, "Well, if our system existed in the year 1498, we would have been able to sue the hell out of the Inquisition, and this is what I think they would have awarded me, so I'm entitled to that now."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Objectivists (not Randians -- that's a slur)
I'm curious, which do you see as a more serious slur. Randian or "anti-life".
It depends. I tend to think of a descriptor which is justified as less of a slur than one which is not.
Now I'm curious. How does 'Randian' (begging your pardon) differ from
quote:... a die-hard Rand-worshipping Randroid...
?
For the record, I think one of the detestable (and difficult) things about slurs is that those who use them generally consider them to be merely justified descriptors.
Also for the record, I do not consider 'Randian' or 'anti-life' slurs, according to my understanding of the term 'slur.' Though, curiously, it does feel as if the slur-factor of the two terms is vaguely inverse in the following sense: Someone who is not 'anti-life' would most object to being so described; whereas someone who is a devotee of Rand would (might?) most object to being so labeled (as compared to someone who had never heard of her).
Also, because I couldn't let this go by:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Pardon. I misread what you wrote. However, you could not dispute what I thought you read.
For an Objectivist, you have an outstanding sense of humor Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, but our current system really did exist, with some minor modifications, in 1865. Then again, if it had been working properly, it would plainly have imposed the debt on the actual slave owners, and as we agreed, debts owed to others are not inheritable, only debts others owe you. So I think I can have my cake and eat it too : I can say that a debt really was owed to the slaves, and that it descends to the present day; but also that nobody has to pay it, because the original debtors, wily bastards that they were, managed to die their way out of it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but hang on; the estates of many of those slave owners still exists, for chunks to be taken out of. Tricky, that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Regardless, comparing not giving to stealing is something you've introduced yourself. There's no way on Earth you can pull that out of the sources you're citing.
Actually, that is what I was taught. But since this was over 15 years ago, you are correct that I cannot cite a source.
I believe the distinction you are making is a practical one, and not an ethical one. But I am sure there is plenty of evidence for both sides of that particular debate. So I won't.
posted
Only metzuveh by God. Not by the government, for crying out loud. No one has ever applied that to non-God sources.
Also, I don't think it's that clear that this source is non-Maharal. He doesn't say where he got it from. And it seems like a lot of editorializing on his part.
quote:Objectivists (not Randians -- that's a slur)
I'm curious, which do you see as a more serious slur. Randian or "anti-life".
It depends. I tend to think of a descriptor which is justified as less of a slur than one which is not.
Now I'm curious. How does 'Randian' (begging your pardon) differ from
quote:... a die-hard Rand-worshipping Randroid...
?
Um... the latter was a joke. That's a slur often directed at Objectivists, but it does at least communicate the general idea that I'm not just a libertarian. That I buy into the whole Objectivist philosophy. Lock, stock, and good premises.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Also, because I couldn't let this go by:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Pardon. I misread what you wrote. However, you could not dispute what I thought you read.
For an Objectivist, you have an outstanding sense of humor
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah, but hang on; the estates of many of those slave owners still exists, for chunks to be taken out of. Tricky, that.
But there's no one who is entitled to any of it. Determination of damages would have to be done with the actual victim there, and at the request of the actual victim. Not some descendent or collateral relative.
I have a third cousin who died in the Holocaust. Do you think I should be entitled to any kind of reparations from Germany? I don't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Libertarian economics make sense. Libertarian anything else is a bit odd. Randians... are a cult like Scientology but with fewer celebrities.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GeronL: Libertarian economics make sense. Libertarian anything else is a bit odd. Randians... are a cult like Scientology but with fewer celebrities.
Easy to say, not at all easy to substantiate. Sounds like just an insult for the sake of being insulting. Without any substance to it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome GeronL! I notice you're a newb. And, most likely, a conservative christian.
Enjoy the debates you find here, though I think you'll find that off the cuff remarks such as "Randians are a cult..." won't make as big of an impact as well thought out, reasoned responses.
posted
It was an off the cuff remark meant to be taken as a light joke. I think I will stay out of the deeper discussions for a little bit longer. I have my ideas of course, and they are noticeable in my new story, well its not finished yet.
I had planned to call it EMPIRE, but that ain't happening now, thanks Uncle Orson... I am calling it SOLIDARITY
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant to post a note yesterday that TCM was showing "The Fountainhead" last night, but I forgot. I really don't know why I'm bringing it up now; it's too late to do anything about it.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TCM is a great station. It's so sad that it doesn't come with most people's basic subscriptions, and that most people don't value it enough to pay extra for it. They just don't know what they're missing. I think the government should pay for every American to have TCM, so that they can watch fine classic films like The Fountainhead. After all, those old movies are a part of our culture, and it's worth it to make sure everyone has access to them.
posted
Maybe the government could pay to provide a copy of this important movie to every household, and that way even people who don't get TCM could see it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people most likely to think this movie is important are the least likely to think the government should pay to provide anything to every household.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: The people most likely to think this movie is important are the least likely to think the government should pay to provide anything to every household.
<blink> Thanks for stating the obvious.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a reminder that the movie starts in about 10 minutes, in case anyone was planning to watch it.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
