http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1
:bleeding:
and how do you prevent estates from being transferred while the owner is still alive?
BREEDERS RULE!
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2012, 10:05:51 AM
and how do you prevent estates from being transferred while the owner is still alive?
Gift taxes.
Why do you have a problem with rich kids having expensive toys? They are like you, some of them are even gay.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1
:bleeding:
Not sure I follow. Aren't you a 1%? Aren't you supposed to be among these?
I don't have a problem with it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 21, 2012, 10:10:26 AM
Why do you have a problem with rich kids having expensive toys? They are like you, some of them are even gay.
Martinus has always been jealous of his betters.
They may think they're happy, but they're not.
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2012, 10:05:51 AM
and how do you prevent estates from being transferred while the owner is still alive?
Well, if anyone wants to give up his or her entire livelihoods into hands of kids like that, then be my guest.
Quote from: Drakken on August 21, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1
:bleeding:
Not sure I follow. Aren't you a 1%? Aren't you supposed to be among these?
Wealth is not the same as wanton and mindless consummerism.
There is a difference between being Warren Buffet and Richard Branson or Paris Hilton.
Quote from: DGuller on August 21, 2012, 10:21:05 AM
They may think they're happy, but they're not.
Money may not make you happy, but being poor sure as hell won't make you happy lol
This thread did have a useful function. A reminder that I need to update my will.
Also....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lolwtfcomics.com%2Fupload%2Fuploads%2F1331211827.jpg&hash=bd97ec845346eedf2610a7d27984c132cc701117)
Quote from: HVC on August 21, 2012, 10:25:52 AM
Money may not make you happy, but being poor sure as hell won't make you happy lol
Like the ex-wife of Maurizio Gucci, Patrizia Reggiani, once said, "better be smiling in a limousine than crying on a bicycle."
Speaking of her... :lol:
Quote
In October 2011, she was offered a chance at parole, but refused saying "I've never worked in my life and I'm certainly not going to start now"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2012, 10:08:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2012, 10:05:51 AM
and how do you prevent estates from being transferred while the owner is still alive?
Gift taxes.
so charity is now forbidden. State would take everything and give nothing back. I suppose it pleases to some people.
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2012, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2012, 10:08:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2012, 10:05:51 AM
and how do you prevent estates from being transferred while the owner is still alive?
Gift taxes.
so charity is now forbidden. State would take everything and give nothing back. I suppose it pleases to some people.
:huh:
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:24:46 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 21, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1
:bleeding:
Not sure I follow. Aren't you a 1%? Aren't you supposed to be among these?
Wealth is not the same as wanton and mindless consummerism.
There is a difference between being Warren Buffet and Richard Branson or Paris Hilton.
Wouldn't "wanton and mindless consumerism" increase if wealth can't be transferred from generation to generation?
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 01:02:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:24:46 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 21, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1
:bleeding:
Not sure I follow. Aren't you a 1%? Aren't you supposed to be among these?
Wealth is not the same as wanton and mindless consummerism.
There is a difference between being Warren Buffet and Richard Branson or Paris Hilton.
Wouldn't "wanton and mindless consumerism" increase if wealth can't be transferred from generation to generation?
I don't know - usually people who earn the money are the type of people who do not want to spend it wantonly on useless shit. And even if they were, it's still their right since they earned it - as opposed to the parasites who spawned out of their cum.
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
That's fine - I'm fine with gifts, since the giver is still in mental capacity and presumably the decision is correct. But once a person croak, there is really no reason why his adult children should get anything of it (except if someone is e.g. disabled and cannot earn his or her maintenance).
Your view reflects your communist upbringing. "These parasites should not inherit the People's wealth! The money should be given to the government and redistributed as needed."
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 01:20:23 PM
Your view reflects your communist upbringing. "These parasites should not inherit the People's wealth! The money should be given to the government and redistributed as needed."
I have well-off parents. They helped me with my life and I'm fine with it. But I now earn my own living and I see no reason why I should get their money whe they die. So really it's hard to say I had a communist upbringing. Quite the opposite.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:24:46 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 21, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1
:bleeding:
Not sure I follow. Aren't you a 1%? Aren't you supposed to be among these?
Wealth is not the same as wanton and mindless consummerism.
There is a difference between being Warren Buffet and Richard Branson or Paris Hilton.
What are you talking about?
Mindless consumerism is a source of wealth.
We need more rich kids like these to generate more revenues for the tourism, car, and entertaiment industries.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 01:20:23 PM
Your view reflects your communist upbringing. "These parasites should not inherit the People's wealth! The money should be given to the government and redistributed as needed."
Word.
Paris Hilton is a bad example. The Women created a multi million dollar empire that does make or produce anything.
Quote from: Siege on August 21, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
Mindless consumerism is a source of wealth.
It's not like there would be no consumption without them. If these rich were lined up and executed, and their wealth redistributed, those who got the spoils would increase their own consumption. In fact, they'd probably consume higher percent of that wealth than the now-deceased rich would.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 01:20:23 PM
Your view reflects your communist upbringing. "These parasites should not inherit the People's wealth! The money should be given to the government and redistributed as needed."
I have well-off parents. They helped me with my life and I'm fine with it. But I now earn my own living and I see no reason why I should get their money whe they die. So really it's hard to say I had a communist upbringing. Quite the opposite.
What do you suggest they do with it?
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Your view has nothing to do with economy, it's all because you hate children.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Disagreeing with you on this doesn't make one a neo-con.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 21, 2012, 01:54:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Your view has nothing to do with economy, it's all because you hate civilization.
I don't think there's a fundamental right to pass on your wealth to your kids, but people like to do it so why not. Stupid rich kids are far from the biggest problem we have and I am not aware of a substantially better option.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 02:06:50 PM
I don't think there's a fundamental right to pass on your wealth to your kids, but people like to do it so why not. Stupid rich kids are far from the biggest problem we have and I am not aware of a substantially better option.
Well ultimately all rights are about being allowed to pass ones wealth, values and philosophy on to ones children. Paris Hilton is merely an annoying unintended consequence of being allowed to give ones property to those who one cares most about after death.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 21, 2012, 01:52:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 01:20:23 PM
Your view reflects your communist upbringing. "These parasites should not inherit the People's wealth! The money should be given to the government and redistributed as needed."
I have well-off parents. They helped me with my life and I'm fine with it. But I now earn my own living and I see no reason why I should get their money whe they die. So really it's hard to say I had a communist upbringing. Quite the opposite.
What do you suggest they do with it?
Agreed. What would they do with it?
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 21, 2012, 01:52:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 01:20:23 PM
Your view reflects your communist upbringing. "These parasites should not inherit the People's wealth! The money should be given to the government and redistributed as needed."
I have well-off parents. They helped me with my life and I'm fine with it. But I now earn my own living and I see no reason why I should get their money whe they die. So really it's hard to say I had a communist upbringing. Quite the opposite.
What do you suggest they do with it?
Agreed. What would they do with it?
I'll accept it if they mail it over to me.
Polish people : People do things differently than I do, so their activities should be banned.
Martinus : People have fun differently than I think they should, so their activities should be banned.
Yeah, I'd say he fits right in.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Do you remember a few weeks ago when we had to break it to you that you weren't the aristocracy. That's what aristocracy looks like in the modern world.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 02:10:40 PM
Well ultimately all rights are about being allowed to pass ones wealth, values and philosophy on to ones children.
Elaborate. I don't think I agree, but if you can back that up I can be convinced.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
I have well-off parents. They helped me with my life and I'm fine with it. But I now earn my own living and I see no reason why I should get their money whe they die. So really it's hard to say I had a communist upbringing. Quite the opposite.
Because they decide to give it to you when they die. They do not have to give it to you. They could donate their entire estate to the Catholic Church if they wanted. I am sure the Mother Church would pray for their soul if they did.
Ultimately if a rich person decides to give their wealth to their kids (or their spouse or their gardener or whatever) it is probably not because they deserve it it is because they wanted to do that.
But really in most cases in life deserving has nothing to do with anything.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Neo-Con? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2012, 03:37:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Neo-Con? :unsure:
He doesn't know what words mean.
Am I a neo-con?
Nah, I am a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 03:08:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 02:10:40 PM
Well ultimately all rights are about being allowed to pass ones wealth, values and philosophy on to ones children.
Elaborate. I don't think I agree, but if you can back that up I can be convinced.
The rights we cherish and identify as the important rights are not valuable in themselves. Freedom of speech only matters because speech has consequences, if speech didn't have consequences it would not matter and nobody would either bother suppressing it or fighting for its freedom.
The idea of rights we have I believe is wrong. Every right we enumerate or list or claim has been fought for historically for specific concrete reasons. Originally I thought that rights were primarily focused on life, conscience and freedom. When reading up properly (not the myth-history we get in school) on the Magna Carta it became clear that the document was fundamentally a means to prevent the King from "stealing" feudal holdings from their "rightful" owners by by legal confiscation. Tyranny win the mind of the Magnates was not killing Barons the King didn't like, Tyranny was disinheriting the killed Baron's children. The right to a trial by jury is not there because the fair trial was in and of itself a virtue, but because the unfair trial was a tool for confiscation and disinheritance.
The first rights that are established are the feudal property rights and the rights which are used to protect those property rights.
The root cause analysis is as follows, free speech is neccessary for a free election, without which our right to vote doesn't matter which is necessary for a free and sovereign parliament, without which rules and laws which protect the individual and his right to think, spend, pray, earn, eat, fuck etc. etc. are meaningless.
Quote from: Siege on August 21, 2012, 03:51:40 PM
Am I a neo-con?
Nah, I am a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative.
In order to be a neo-con, you must previously have been a socialist.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
Do you still have to report it? Any limits on the amount per "transaction"? (I thought the U.S. had some over-10k-and-the-feds-look-for-drug-money kind of thing)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 03:57:04 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 21, 2012, 03:51:40 PM
Am I a neo-con?
Nah, I am a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative.
In order to be a neo-con, you must previously have been a socialistTrotskyist.
FYP
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 03:08:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 02:10:40 PM
Well ultimately all rights are about being allowed to pass ones wealth, values and philosophy on to ones children.
Elaborate. I don't think I agree, but if you can back that up I can be convinced.
The rights we cherish and identify as the important rights are not valuable in themselves. Freedom of speech only matters because speech has consequences, if speech didn't have consequences it would not matter and nobody would either bother suppressing it or fighting for its freedom.
The idea of rights we have I believe is wrong. Every right we enumerate or list or claim has been fought for historically for specific concrete reasons. Originally I thought that rights were primarily focused on life, conscience and freedom. When reading up properly (not the myth-history we get in school) on the Magna Carta it became clear that the document was fundamentally a means to prevent the King from "stealing" feudal holdings from their "rightful" owners by by legal confiscation. Tyranny win the mind of the Magnates was not killing Barons the King didn't like, Tyranny was disinheriting the killed Baron's children. The right to a trial by jury is not there because the fair trial was in and of itself a virtue, but because the unfair trial was a tool for confiscation and disinheritance.
The first rights that are established are the feudal property rights and the rights which are used to protect those property rights.
The root cause analysis is as follows, free speech is neccessary for a free election, without which our right to vote doesn't matter which is necessary for a free and sovereign parliament, without which rules and laws which protect the individual and his right to think, spend, pray, earn, eat, fuck etc. etc. are meaningless.
What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 21, 2012, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
Do you still have to report it? Any limits on the amount per "transaction"? (I thought the U.S. had some over-10k-and-the-feds-look-for-drug-money kind of thing)
I believe that any transaction over 10k is reported to...somebody. The FBI maybe. I don't think you have to report it unless you are over the limit.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:18:44 PM
What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?
I don't consider you a serious interlocutor so I'm not going to bother answering.
I'll take that as "I didn't think that out as much as I thought I did".
I just had an image of a puppy winning his tug-of-war and doing a victory dance with the rope.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:24:10 PM
I'll take that as "I didn't think that out as much as I thought I did".
It could just be he doesn't respect you and doesn't want to have a discussion with you.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2012, 04:41:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:24:10 PM
I'll take that as "I didn't think that out as much as I thought I did".
It could just be he doesn't respect you and doesn't want to have a discussion with you.
Yes, that is true. I'm sure he doesn't. He's made it clear he doesn't respect people he disagrees with. He's said that before. But Viking would answer (as he has in other threads today), if he had a good answer. He doesn't, so he retreats into Grumblerism.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 04:20:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:18:44 PM
What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?
I don't consider you a serious interlocutor so I'm not going to bother answering.
So what about the Barons who wanted their rights enshrined so that they didn't have to worry about being dispossessed during their own lifetimes?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 04:20:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 21, 2012, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
Do you still have to report it? Any limits on the amount per "transaction"? (I thought the U.S. had some over-10k-and-the-feds-look-for-drug-money kind of thing)
I believe that any transaction over 10k is reported to...somebody. The FBI maybe. I don't think you have to report it unless you are over the limit.
UP here we report transactions over $10k to FINTRAC.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 04:20:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 04:18:44 PM
What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?
I don't consider you a serious interlocutor so I'm not going to bother answering.
So what about the Barons who wanted their rights enshrined so that they didn't have to worry about being dispossessed during their own lifetimes?
Well, when given the choice they did choose to confess lesser capital crimes to avoid the treason charge which permitted the king to disinherit.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
The first rights that are established are the feudal property rights and the rights which are used to protect those property rights.
Legally enforcable property rights predate feudalism
By a very long time.
But hey fun riff.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2012, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
The first rights that are established are the feudal property rights and the rights which are used to protect those property rights.
Legally enforcable property rights predate feudalism
By a very long time.
But hey fun riff.
I must have missed the bit where Roman Patricians kept their land during the barbarian conquest without some quid pro quo vis a vis the conquerors.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 05:43:02 PM
I must have missed the bit where Roman Patricians kept their land during the barbarian conquest without some quid pro quo vis a vis the conquerors.
The point eludes me.
Your claim is that feudal property rights are the "first rights to be established"
Which is off to begin with because in a sense there is no such thing as feudal property rights at all; "feudalism" in the ideal typology refers to a system where control over property stems from personal relationships whose contractual nature is not enforceable by law. Magna Carta wasn't generated until the post-feudal age is well udnerway (indeed that is in part why it arises.)
If your argument that rights aren't really rights if at some point in past, present or future their integrity holds only because of some explicit or implicit quid quo pro involving a powerful actor, than there aren't and have never been any such thing.
If your argument is something else, it isn't clear.
This discussion needs more mention of organized religion.
How would the American Civil War have gone had Marty's ideas been executed prior to Bleeding Kansas?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 06:40:34 PM
How would the American Civil War have gone had Marty's ideas been executed prior to Bleeding Kansas?
Mart would have been stabbed while gaying it up in the Five Points.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Because it is a terrible idea. Many people that earn lots of wealth have it tied to a business venture of some sort. Imagine a farmer who in old age knows he can't leave the property to his children but has money put aside. He certainly won't have much incentive to invest in improvements to the farm. He may actually have an incentive to destroy the farm's value: for example, if the tractors outside interrupt his afternoon nap, perhaps he will shut half the farm down so he can sleep in peace. Or if he really likes baseball, maybe he will build a field to see if they come.
The same principles work with any other business. It also probably won't be for the best for the government to own all of businesses once the current owners die.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2012, 06:43:17 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 06:40:34 PM
How would the American Civil War have gone had Marty's ideas been executed prior to Bleeding Kansas?
Mart would have been stabbed while gaying it up in the Five Points.
One can almost imagine Marty and Lettow riding with Bragg during the Civil War. It'd be like a war game where Jeff Davis keeps drawing bad commanders and putting them out in command of garrisons out West.
To say nothing of the corruption that would arise when the government had to divest itself of the properties and monies. Assuming it did. I guess in a generation or two the government wold be the sole land owner and source of wealth.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 06:52:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2012, 06:43:17 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 06:40:34 PM
How would the American Civil War have gone had Marty's ideas been executed prior to Bleeding Kansas?
Mart would have been stabbed while gaying it up in the Five Points.
One can almost imagine Marty and Lettow riding with Bragg during the Civil War. It'd be like a war game where Jeff Davis keeps drawing bad commanders and putting them out in command of garrisons out West.
Mart -2 command, -4 morale. Slow mover, Avg. intellect. Prone to flights of fancy. Assigned to garrison duty in Brownsville, Texas commanding a garrison of 500 old men and boys.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 06:53:22 PM
To say nothing of the corruption that would arise when the government had to divest itself of the properties and monies. Assuming it did. I guess in a generation or two the government wold be the sole land owner and source of wealth.
I'd burn the winery down before I'd let the gub'mint take mah lands.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
Assigned to garrison duty in Brownsville, Texas commanding a garrison of 500 old men and boys.
That'd be, what, roughly 816 feet?
Quote from: Habbaku on August 21, 2012, 07:16:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
Assigned to garrison duty in Brownsville, Texas commanding a garrison of 500 old men and boys.
That'd be, what, roughly 816 feet?
:lol:
You guys are making fun of Martinus on his back.
He is not aware of this thread.
This is not polite.
Siege, he started this thread.
Quote from: Siege on August 21, 2012, 07:28:03 PM
You guys are making fun of Martinus on his back.
He is not aware of this thread.
This is not polite.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-i2GEiEjCjcs%2FT4mQNCo8C6I%2FAAAAAAAAAMk%2FFg-35XzBAg4%2Fs1600%2FAchmed-The-Dead-Terrorist-achmed-the-dead-terrorist-8898423-367-279.jpg&hash=0410a3b6ac1120f4b26f361993d8d67d5370debe)
Siege made a JOKE!
:lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 21, 2012, 07:45:14 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 21, 2012, 07:28:03 PM
You guys are making fun of Martinus on his back.
He is not aware of this thread.
This is not polite.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-i2GEiEjCjcs%2FT4mQNCo8C6I%2FAAAAAAAAAMk%2FFg-35XzBAg4%2Fs1600%2FAchmed-The-Dead-Terrorist-achmed-the-dead-terrorist-8898423-367-279.jpg&hash=0410a3b6ac1120f4b26f361993d8d67d5370debe)
Siege made a JOKE!
You never know, he might actually mean what he said.
I thought he was wasted on light beer.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
My mother in law's parents have started doing the same for their daughters every year as a Christmas present. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2012, 08:03:45 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
My mother in law's parents have started doing the same for their daughters every year as a Christmas present. :)
I GOT A 5 DOLLAR CHECK. :mad:
:lol:
I still get checks, and sometimes actual cash, for like $10 mailed to me every Christmas from my grandfather. At this point it's kind of ridiculous because my household income far exceeds his (he basically gets social security plus a modest minister's pension from the ELCA).
All my grandparents are dead. :(
Just got the one grandpa left. He's 91 so he probably won't be around for much longer. I should go visit him but I never have the time. I'm gonna regret it when he kicks off. :Embarrass:
My other grandpa died in 1980. :(
Dude, go if you can. Tell work to suck your dick and give them a crotch chop.
My last grandparent died back in '94. I never knew either grandfather or one of my grandmothers.
Both of my grandmothers died of cancer and both died in 1993... one in late June and the other in early August. That was a rough year.
Never met my dad's father - he was born in 1897 and he was almost 70 when I was born (he survived gas attacks in World War I, lost most of one lung, smoked like a chimney, and owned William Morrow). My other grandfather was the sailor, and he lived to be 90, dying a bit over a decade ago.
Cal, visit your grandfather, you schmuck.
my grandparents were dead or died shortly after i was born. Except for me paternal grandmother. she passed away when i was 5 or so. I just happened to be in portugal at the time. If i went to the funeral i don't remember it, but i do recall visiting the grave soon after. i do have fond memories of her. She was a good lady. Taught herself how to read and write at the young age of 70.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:18:18 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
That's fine - I'm fine with gifts, since the giver is still in mental capacity and presumably the decision is correct. But once a person croak, there is really no reason why his adult children should get anything of it (except if someone is e.g. disabled and cannot earn his or her maintenance).
That's why we invented these things called "wills."
...I'm sure this has been brought up already, but God damn.
Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax. 100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 21, 2012, 01:20:23 PM
Your view reflects your communist upbringing. "These parasites should not inherit the People's wealth! The money should be given to the government and redistributed as needed."
I have well-off parents. They helped me with my life and I'm fine with it. But I now earn my own living and I see no reason why I should get their money whe they die. So really it's hard to say I had a communist upbringing. Quite the opposite.
I assume, then, that you will gift your inheritance to the Polish state? If so, I'll have to change certain opinions I hold of you (nothing you'd find terribly negative, I'm afraid, only that you're rather selfish).
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2012, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:52:54 PM
So, noone is going to agree with me? Seriously? Since when this forum has gone so neo-con? :D
Because it is a terrible idea. Many people that earn lots of wealth have it tied to a business venture of some sort. Imagine a farmer who in old age knows he can't leave the property to his children but has money put aside. He certainly won't have much incentive to invest in improvements to the farm. He may actually have an incentive to destroy the farm's value: for example, if the tractors outside interrupt his afternoon nap, perhaps he will shut half the farm down so he can sleep in peace. Or if he really likes baseball, maybe he will build a field to see if they come.
The same principles work with any other business. It also probably won't be for the best for the government to own all of businesses once the current owners die.
:goodboy:
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2012, 08:14:33 PM
:lol:
I still get checks, and sometimes actual cash, for like $10 mailed to me every Christmas from my grandfather. At this point it's kind of ridiculous because my household income far exceeds his (he basically gets social security plus a modest minister's pension from the ELCA).
I finally found, and used, a $50 gift card I lost two Christmases ago. :blush:
Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 12:56:09 AM
Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.
The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.
The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:18:18 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
That's fine - I'm fine with gifts, since the giver is still in mental capacity and presumably the decision is correct. But once a person croak, there is really no reason why his adult children should get anything of it (except if someone is e.g. disabled and cannot earn his or her maintenance).
That's why we invented these things called "wills."
...I'm sure this has been brought up already, but God damn.
Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax. 100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.
you can so reveal the basic sentiment behind socialism - "it is not just to have people with more money than I do"
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 03:58:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 12:56:09 AM
Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.
The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.
The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.
You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.
Considering that a large amount of surviving documentation (besides church scripture) from the post-Roman world concerns property affairs (who owns what) I find it a bit surprising to hear that the notion of property rights had been abandoned in that period.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 04:37:32 AM
You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.
Yes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest. The world of the 13th century looked economically much more like the 2nd century roman empire than it did the 8th century proto-feudal kingdoms.
This whole thread is right up there with Marty's "people are stupid for wanting kids" thread. It is human nature to desire a legacy, a way to support the loved ones you leave behind when you die. Fighting it is silly and hopeless.
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 04:44:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 04:37:32 AM
You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.
Yes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest. The world of the 13th century looked economically much more like the 2nd century roman empire than it did the 8th century proto-feudal kingdoms.
Yes, but after the end of the feudal era the feudal contract was abandoned in favour of "modern" property law - which is essentially Roman law resurrected, at least as far as continental Europe is concerned. So saying that feudal relations played a role in development of modern property law but Roman law didn't is quite ignorant.
Quote from: Syt on August 22, 2012, 04:42:33 AM
Considering that a large amount of surviving documentation (besides church scripture) from the post-Roman world concerns property affairs (who owns what) I find it a bit surprising to hear that the notion of property rights had been abandoned in that period.
Feudal Contract means no property rights. You don't own your land, you hold it for your lord. The roman law thing is a red herring here. For the castle building knights of the feudal contract your land was the land you could hold by force of arms and the only title deed was your lords appreciation of the fact that starving you out of your castle was too much of a hassle. The conquerors took all the land, they then used the land as a reward for past and future service. This is not a continuation of centuries of roman legal tradition this is a replacement by germanic tribal custom. All land was owned by the king and the king gave it out to whoever he wanted. This is the starting point for centuries of struggle between vassals and their lords for the rights of inheritance.
but fuck it, nobody is actually listening...
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 04:49:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 04:44:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 04:37:32 AM
You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.
Yes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest. The world of the 13th century looked economically much more like the 2nd century roman empire than it did the 8th century proto-feudal kingdoms.
Yes, but after the end of the feudal era the feudal contract was abandoned in favour of "modern" property law - which is essentially Roman law resurrected, at least as far as continental Europe is concerned. So saying that feudal relations played a role in development of modern property law but Roman law didn't is quite ignorant.
yes, "modern" property law in it's resurrection of roman law represents the success in the struggle for property rights. I don't understand why you can't comprehend that "not being used anymore" is not the same thing as "never having existed".
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1
:bleeding:
What's your problem with these pictures? This is what I imagine your soirées look like.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 11:36:34 PM
Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax. 100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.
As your Avatar title says,
Fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuck you.
:)
Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2012, 04:34:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2012, 01:18:18 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.
In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. :P
That's fine - I'm fine with gifts, since the giver is still in mental capacity and presumably the decision is correct. But once a person croak, there is really no reason why his adult children should get anything of it (except if someone is e.g. disabled and cannot earn his or her maintenance).
That's why we invented these things called "wills."
...I'm sure this has been brought up already, but God damn.
Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax. 100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.
you can so reveal the basic sentiment behind socialism - "it is not just to have people with more money than I do"
What about people who are already wealthy?
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 04:54:51 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 22, 2012, 04:42:33 AM
Considering that a large amount of surviving documentation (besides church scripture) from the post-Roman world concerns property affairs (who owns what) I find it a bit surprising to hear that the notion of property rights had been abandoned in that period.
Feudal Contract means no property rights. You don't own your land, you hold it for your lord. The roman law thing is a red herring here. For the castle building knights of the feudal contract your land was the land you could hold by force of arms and the only title deed was your lords appreciation of the fact that starving you out of your castle was too much of a hassle. The conquerors took all the land, they then used the land as a reward for past and future service. This is not a continuation of centuries of roman legal tradition this is a replacement by germanic tribal custom. All land was owned by the king and the king gave it out to whoever he wanted. This is the starting point for centuries of struggle between vassals and their lords for the rights of inheritance.
but fuck it, nobody is actually listening...
Cause it's based on incorrect information. Even under feudalism, some people owned landed. And Feudalism wasn't universal in Europe.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 22, 2012, 07:05:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2012, 11:36:34 PM
Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax. 100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.
As your Avatar title says, Fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuck you.
:)
Now, I can compromise. I suppose the number could vary based on family size.
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 03:58:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2012, 12:56:09 AM
Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.
The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.
The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.
I think there was a lot more continuity with Roman law than you are allowing. Also, you are focusing on land rights in an idealized feudal system--those don't encompass all property rights. For example, early surviving germanic laws involves property rights (though I don't know if they extend to land in any places).
Again rights are not laws. What protected roman property were not rights but customs and laws. Once those customs were removed the laws were ignored.
I know there was a continuation of roman law where the church survived. But again Rights /= Laws. In the early middle ages there are no more rights (except maybe ecclesiastical ones which have over time been abolished as regular people got rights) than you can claim and hold under arms with your relatives, friends and neighbors.
Property rights and permission to have property are not the same thing.
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 09:03:43 AM
Again rights are not laws. What protected roman property were not rights but customs and laws.
I'm not following the distinction. "Rights" are a somewhat philosphical concept; how society protects property is through customs and laws. The Romans had those customs and laws, and so did the Germanic tribes that replaced them.
If you want to discuss the philosophical context, Cicero laid a lot of the groundwork for the enlightenment thinkers such as Locke who developed our modern concepts. Christianity dominated the thinking of the late roman empire and its successors, and Christianity has a concept of property rights within it.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 09:03:43 AM
Again rights are not laws. What protected roman property were not rights but customs and laws.
I'm not following the distinction. "Rights" are a somewhat philosphical concept; how society protects property is through customs and laws. The Romans had those customs and laws, and so did the Germanic tribes that replaced them.
If you want to discuss the philosophical context, Cicero laid a lot of the groundwork for the enlightenment thinkers such as Locke who developed our modern concepts. Christianity dominated the thinking of the late roman empire and its successors, and Christianity has a concept of property rights within it.
Well, the people of the time considered the right to pass on property to their heirs significant and later people (including locke and his kin) identify the struggle of feudal vassals for property rights to be the foundation for their own conception of rights (which I might add they invent as a concept).
We can go into another religion hijack, but I think I'm on good ground when I say that christianity doesn't have anything to say about property rights, unless that property is a slave, and for the most part advocates giving any property you might have away.
The stoics, epicureans, cynics, skeptics, neo-platonists and all the other Roman Schools of Philosophy had little to say about rights. I'll agree that the judeo-christian idea of each person having value in and of himself because he was created in the image of god is a vital building block for the very concept of rights, but it is a building block that lies around the back of the quarry unused for millennia.
I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 03:58:27 AM
The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.
The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.
QuoteYes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest.
QuoteFeudal Contract means no property rights. You don't own your land, you hold it for your lord. The roman law thing is a red herring here. For the castle building knights of the feudal contract your land was the land you could hold by force of arms and the only title deed was your lords appreciation of the fact that starving you out of your castle was too much of a hassle. The conquerors took all the land, they then used the land as a reward for past and future service. This is not a continuation of centuries of roman legal tradition this is a replacement by germanic tribal custom
This is all a bit of mess - it ignores almost a century of historiography on the late classical or medieval period, maybe more.
First of all, the fall of the Roman empire did not lead seemlessly into "castle building knights." Without plunging to deeply into the still-raging controversies on this issue, that "feudal transformation" is a post-Carolingian phenomemon (although perhaps with some roots in the earlier period). There is no connection with the period of the rise of Barabarian kingdoms which were not "feudal" in that sense or any other recognized sense of the word.
By and large, the rise of the Barbarian polities in the core areas of the Western Empire did not displace Roman law, which continued to apply to existing population as before. The Barbarians (originally a minority) were governed by their own customary or tribal law - it was a dual system. Indeed, it didn't take long for Barbarian customary law to be "romanized" - the Salian law (e.g.) was coidified and published and Latin. Although in some cases, Roman landowners had to cede property in return for political protection, they otherwise retained their real property, which was still governed by Roman law. And Walter Goffart and others have even cast doubt on whether actual transfers of property occurred in some cases, as opposed to transfers of fiscal rights associated with the land. None of this was accidental: the Barbarians wanted to reap the benefits of Roman civilization, not overturn it; the Roman elites were willing to replace an erratic but sometimes fiscally rapacious imperial machinery with new, more reliable military protectors.
The "castle building knights" OTOH arise centuries later out of the detrius of the failed Carolingian experiment - i.e. they come to the fore as a result of a temporary vacuum in political authority. Their hold over land certainly has little to do with "Germanic Tribal custom" - even if such a thing existed; nor is it properly termed a "contract" ( the notion of a feudal contract is almost a contradiction in terms). At its most crudely reductionist, they held land by right of possession and superior might, and to the extent no political authority chose to challenge that possession. The proponents of the feudal revolution or tranformation theory hold that a distinctive aspect of the new banal lordships was precisely that the de facto ability of any overlord to remove them from the land was diminished greatly over the Carolingian period. The theoretical ability of an overlord to deny transfer of a fief or benefice was often just that and by the time kings and higher lords can make good on those theoretical rights, there is a more complex political-legal structure in place that allows the "vassals" to demand formalization of rights as per, for example, Magna Carta.
The "feudal" period in the 10th and 11th century looks lawless and in a sense it probably was, but it doesn't mean formal law vanished; it was just in temporary occultation due to declines in literacy and the non-existence of any bureaucracy. With the rise of the organuzaed Church, greater literacy and the beginnings of royal bureaucracy in the 12 century, the Roman law returns to the surface, customary (or common) law becomes re-formalized, and conflicts over personal ties and property rights increasingly start transforming into conflicts over legal jurisdiction.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).
Coveting is beside the point; wanting somebody dead is not depriving them of the right to life. As I did point out earlier property and property rights are not the same thing.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).
Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2012, 10:49:20 AM
This is all a bit of mess - it ignores almost a century of historiography on the late classical or medieval period, maybe more.
First of all, the fall of the Roman empire did not lead seemlessly into "castle building knights." Without plunging to deeply into the still-raging controversies on this issue, that "feudal transformation" is a post-Carolingian phenomemon (although perhaps with some roots in the earlier period). There is no connection with the period of the rise of Barabarian kingdoms which were not "feudal" in that sense or any other recognized sense of the word.
whoopdeedoo... congrats on not reading. This is all a bit of a mess - it ignores most of what I said and said I said.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2012, 10:49:20 AM
By and large, the rise of the Barbarian polities in the core areas of the Western Empire did not displace Roman law, which continued to apply to existing population as before. The Barbarians (originally a minority) were governed by their own customary or tribal law - it was a dual system. Indeed, it didn't take long for Barbarian customary law to be "romanized" - the Salian law (e.g.) was coidified and published and Latin. Although in some cases, Roman landowners had to cede property in return for political protection, they otherwise retained their real property, which was still governed by Roman law. And Walter Goffart and others have even cast doubt on whether actual transfers of property occurred in some cases, as opposed to transfers of fiscal rights associated with the land. None of this was accidental: the Barbarians wanted to reap the benefits of Roman civilization, not overturn it; the Roman elites were willing to replace an erratic but sometimes fiscally rapacious imperial machinery with new, more reliable military protectors.
The "castle building knights" OTOH arise centuries later out of the detrius of the failed Carolingian experiment - i.e. they come to the fore as a result of a temporary vacuum in political authority. Their hold over land certainly has little to do with "Germanic Tribal custom" - even if such a thing existed; nor is it properly termed a "contract" ( the notion of a feudal contract is almost a contradiction in terms). At its most crudely reductionist, they held land by right of possession and superior might, and to the extent no political authority chose to challenge that possession. The proponents of the feudal revolution or tranformation theory hold that a distinctive aspect of the new banal lordships was precisely that the de facto ability of any overlord to remove them from the land was diminished greatly over the Carolingian period. The theoretical ability of an overlord to deny transfer of a fief or benefice was often just that and by the time kings and higher lords can make good on those theoretical rights, there is a more complex political-legal structure in place that allows the "vassals" to demand formalization of rights as per, for example, Magna Carta.
The "feudal" period in the 10th and 11th century looks lawless and in a sense it probably was, but it doesn't mean formal law vanished; it was just in temporary occultation due to declines in literacy and the non-existence of any bureaucracy. With the rise of the organuzaed Church, greater literacy and the beginnings of royal bureaucracy in the 12 century, the Roman law returns to the surface, customary (or common) law becomes re-formalized, and conflicts over personal ties and property rights increasingly start transforming into conflicts over legal jurisdiction.
The bolded bit is the process I am talking about. The practical ability of kings degenerated into theoretical rights of royalty and with the Magna Carta and other similar documents of that kind the rights of the nobles vis a vis the king were established. These rights were fought for to protect the nobles from royal arbitraryness.
Rulers care about money, Churches care about conscience and Movements care about ideas. The right to a trial by peers is to protect the property and life of nobles from royal arbitraryness. All the other politcal rights we claim are there to make sure that the government has rules it must play by when it want to take. All our rights ultimately work to protect property, soul and ideas. Given that people routinely die for these rights they are fighting for these rights not just for themselves.
Now, off you go write a wall of words on some red herring.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 11:01:22 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).
Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.
They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 11:15:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 11:01:22 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).
Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.
They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.
but every right and benefit in the bible is contingent granted by god for following his laws. You can't single out inheritance. Old testament god is a badass smiting god. so much cooler then hippy jesus god.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 11:15:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 11:01:22 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).
Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.
They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.
but every right and benefit in the bible is contingent granted by god for following his laws. You can't single out inheritance. Old testament god is a badass smiting god. so much cooler then hippy jesus god.
precisely, there are not rights in the bible, there are only gifts from Yahwe.
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 11:15:28 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 11:01:22 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).
Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.
They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.
but every right and benefit in the bible is contingent granted by god for following his laws. You can't single out inheritance. Old testament god is a badass smiting god. so much cooler then hippy jesus god.
precisely, there are not rights in the bible, there are only gifts from Yahwe.
from a literal perspective sure, but from a practical perspetive your son(s) gets your shit when you die. I would classify that as an inhertican right/law/practice/fancier term.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 11:23:47 AMfrom a literal perspective sure, but from a practical perspetive your son(s) gets your shit when you die. I would classify that as an inhertican right/law/practice/fancier term.
yes, unless somebody bigger and stronger than you takes it.
That still happens in this day and age. might makes right. If the government decides a highway is going through my house i'm losing my house; laws, rights, and "fairness" be damned.
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 11:21:30 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2012, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 11:21:30 AM
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.
Well, yi got his wish. This thread eventually got to Viking rambling on about religion.
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.
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2012, 11:59:19 AM
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.
Sweden has no estate tax and no gift tax. We like it that way.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
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.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2012, 12:07:29 PMStaying 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.