This is why estate taxes should be 100%

[alfred russel]

precisely, there are not rights in the bible, there are only gifts from Yahwe.

From a christian mindset everything is a gift from yahweh/god.

"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

And the author of that sentence was really a deist rather than a christian.

If a society believes person x is entitled to property, and everyone else is prohibited from taking it both legally and morally, that seems to conform to property rights in my view. Such certainly exists in the bible. That there is a religious framework attached to the arrangement only strengthens the arrangement.

[Viking]

precisely, there are not rights in the bible, there are only gifts from Yahwe.

From a christian mindset everything is a gift from yahweh/god.

"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

And the author of that sentence was really a deist rather than a christian.

If a society believes person x is entitled to property, and everyone else is prohibited from taking it both legally and morally, that seems to conform to property rights in my view. Such certainly exists in the bible. That there is a religious framework attached to the arrangement only strengthens the arrangement.

then why do the jews chop off their foreskins? the jews have a covenant, people who are not jews do not have that covenant

rights are specifically not contingent on the whim of a king or a god or the mob, that's why they are rights. Religion is certainly a good way of getting people to accept certain propositions without having to give good reasons. Rights only exist when the relevant powers within that society believe they exist, that is why they needed King John to sign Magna Carta and Henry III to affirm it in his coronation oath.

[Razgovory]

Well, yi got his wish.  This thread eventually got to Viking rambling on about religion.

[HVC]

Viking, from a practical perspective what's the difference between a right provided by law or one provided by religion (or god if you prefer)? Both can be changed on a whim. Staying on the inheritance them, inheritance laws change all the time. Canada got rid of ther inheritance tax in the 70's. But what i'm reading from your reasoning there is no such thing as a right. I'm not trying to be difficult, i'm just having trouble seeing where you're coming from.

[alfred russel]

then why do the jews chop off their foreskins? the jews have a covenant, people who are not jews do not have that covenant

rights are specifically not contingent on the whim of a king or a god or the mob, that's why they are rights. Religion is certainly a good way of getting people to accept certain propositions without having to give good reasons. Rights only exist when the relevant powers within that society believe they exist, that is why they needed King John to sign Magna Carta and Henry III to affirm it in his coronation oath.

We were discussing christians, for whom the covenant was fufilled. The early church councils decided the moral force of the old testament applied. To take the standard you just mentioned, relevant powers of the society accepted this.

I don't understand how you are somehow negating the historical religious aspects of property rights but still citing things in the middle ages as establishing property rights. The entire political structure of the 1200s was justified through religion--you mention a coronation oath--coronation was a deeply religious ceremony. The Magna Carta, in its text, has religious references to authority.

[The Brain]

Sweden has no estate tax and no gift tax. We like it that way.

[Viking]

Viking, from a practical perspective what's the difference between a right provided by law or one provided by religion (or god if you prefer)? Both can be changed on a whim.

There is no difference between legislated right or divinely granted right. Both rights are won by men in conflict with those who oppose those rights. I realize I'm tending towards the marxian view of history here, but, it actually makes a little bit of sense here. And, trying to stay on my topic here, I suggesting that all rights ultimately exist to preserve a parent's right to give their property, their religion and their values to their children. A right only truly matters when you are no longer there to assert it yourself; anything else just isn't a right.

Our present framework of rights is part of a process started in the middle ages and has become more and more elaborate as time passes as we add more layers of supporting secondary rights to strengthen the framework. The fact that previous societies in history have established similar laws, consensuses and rights doesn't make me wrong in any way about this. Rights are won and lost and whatever our present status of rights we always start from the latest lowpoint.

Staying on the inheritance them, inheritance laws change all the time. Canada got rid of ther inheritance tax in the 70's. But what i'm reading from your reasoning there is no such thing as a right. I'm not trying to be difficult, i'm just having trouble seeing where you're coming from.

I'm staying away from Martinus' breederhatred on this one so I'll decline to comment.