Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic
ygalg

who is the owner?

an old lady walking in the street, suddenly a person on skateboard pass and grab her purse and flees.
another person noticed and began pursuing the thief.
eventually he got the thief. took the purse. but surprisingly he kept to purse to himself in pretext (using the quote) "he who steals from a thief is exempt from punishment ".

is he the new rightful owner, after all he sweat for it?

if yes, does the old lady ceased to be the rightful owner?
if not, what does that makes him?
kafir forever

Re: who is the owner?

ygalg wrote:
an old lady walking in the street, suddenly a person on skateboard pass and grab her purse and flees.
another person noticed and began pursuing the thief.
eventually he got the thief. took the purse. but surprisingly he kept to purse to himself in pretext (using the quote) "he who steals from a thief is exempt from punishment ".


Irrelevant.  Whether that is true or not, it says nothing about the transfer of the ownership RIGHTS to the purse.

Quote:
is he the new rightful owner, after all he sweat for it?


Again, irrelevant

Quote:
if yes, does the old lady ceased to be the rightful owner?
if not, what does that makes him?


Both are thieves.

The issue is the rightful transfer of ownership RIGHTS, not the transfer of the property itself.  For the RIGHT to ownership to be properly transferred, the last rightful owner must VOLUNTARILY transfer the RIGHT to ownership to someone else who accepts that transfer voluntarily, which never happened.  Assuming the old lady was the rightful owner, then she is still the rightful owner because all subsequent property transfers did not include any ownership RIGHTS, and were without the consent of the rightful owner.

This is an example of why the concept of property rights is so essential to the concept of liberty and the proper behavior of human beings respecting these rights in a civilized society.
ygalg

consider we have no records that can confirm Jews conquered the land which known today state of Israel as the bible prescribes the events.
premise they are the owners, as no previous owners (if indeed existed) came and claim it back. the later were conquerers. the islamists like to claim the land is stolen by the Jews from islamists (so called Palestinians). but Omar have not liberate the land from the Byzantines as he have not return it to the owner. but kept the theft for himself thus same theft exchanged thieves. he replaced the culprit with another one. till present day the stigma stitched to islmaists but they are not aware of it or simply living in denial.
kafir forever

ygalg wrote:
consider we have no records that can confirm Jews conquered the land which known today state of Israel as the bible prescribes the events.
premise they are the owners, as no previous owners (if indeed existed) came and claim it back.


OK.

Quote:
the later were conquerers.


I am not sure who you mean here.  Do you mean those who followed the Jews?

Quote:
the islamists like to claim the land is stolen by the Jews from islamists (so called Palestinians).


Then they need to present evidence of that.  Also, when did this supposedly happen? Are you referring to the Canaanites, or are you referring to the Arabs living in what is now Israel in 1948?  My understanding is that in 1948, Jews purchased the land from the so called Palestinians.  If that is true, and if the purchase was voluntary on both sides of the transactions, then the claim vanishes.  If the purchase transactions were coerced, then there would be a claim.

Quote:
but Omar have not liberate the land from the Byzantines as he have not return it to the owner. but kept the theft for himself thus same theft exchanged thieves. he replaced the culprit with another one. till present day the stigma stitched to islmaists but they are not aware of it or simply living in denial.


I do not understand what you are saying here.  I know English is not your native language, and I am not criticizing it, but I really do not know what you mean here -- "till present day the stigma stitched to islmaists but they are not aware of it or simply living in denial"

"Stigma stitched to Islamists ..."? Do you mean "attached"?

"But they are not aware of it or simply living in denial"?  Who is "they" and in what are they in denial of?
ygalg

kafir forever wrote:

Quote:
the later were conquerers.


I am not sure who you mean here.  Do you mean those who followed the Jews?
Byzantines, islamists...etc

Quote:
the islamists like to claim the land is stolen by the Jews from islamists (so called Palestinians).


Quote:
Then they need to present evidence of that.  Also, when did this supposedly happen? Are you referring to the Canaanites, or are you referring to the Arabs living in what is now Israel in 1948?  My understanding is that in 1948, Jews purchased the land from the so called Palestinians.  If that is true, and if the purchase was voluntary on both sides of the transactions, then the claim vanishes.  If the purchase transactions were coerced, then there would be a claim.

the later. but this Palestine are but political tool. it continues the Islamic land expansion.

Quote:
I do not understand what you are saying here.  I know English is not your native language, and I am not criticizing it, but I really do not know what you mean here -- "till present day the stigma stitched to islmaists but they are not aware of it or simply living in denial"

"Stigma stitched to Islamists ..."? Do you mean "attached"?

yep, attached.

Quote:

"But they are not aware of it or simply living in denial"?  Who is "they" and in what are they in denial of?

the islamists do not see the flaw in their premise to claim israel is their land where the rightful owner are the jews. the other lands they already hold such as the temple mount is jewish. yet they see it theirs.
Baal

Yglag, how about if the lady is dead. And someone keeps her purse for few centuries and no one claims it? Now can he keep the damn purse?
kafir forever

ygalg wrote:
kafir forever wrote:

Quote:
the later were conquerers.


I am not sure who you mean here.  Do you mean those who followed the Jews?
Byzantines, islamists...etc

Quote:
the islamists like to claim the land is stolen by the Jews from islamists (so called Palestinians).


Quote:
Then they need to present evidence of that.  Also, when did this supposedly happen? Are you referring to the Canaanites, or are you referring to the Arabs living in what is now Israel in 1948?  My understanding is that in 1948, Jews purchased the land from the so called Palestinians.  If that is true, and if the purchase was voluntary on both sides of the transactions, then the claim vanishes.  If the purchase transactions were coerced, then there would be a claim.

the later. but this Palestine are but political tool. it continues the Islamic land expansion.

Quote:
I do not understand what you are saying here.  I know English is not your native language, and I am not criticizing it, but I really do not know what you mean here -- "till present day the stigma stitched to islmaists but they are not aware of it or simply living in denial"

"Stigma stitched to Islamists ..."? Do you mean "attached"?

yep, attached.

Quote:

"But they are not aware of it or simply living in denial"?  Who is "they" and in what are they in denial of?

the islamists do not see the flaw in their premise to claim israel is their land where the rightful owner are the jews. the other lands they already hold such as the temple mount is jewish. yet they see it theirs.


Thanks, ygalg.  I am getting it now.

So, if we accept the premise that the Jews are the rightful owners of the land we think of as Israel, and everyone who followed as conquerers stole it from their predecessors, then yes, the Jews are still the rightful owners.

One could argue, also, that the Jews conquered the land and stole it from the Canaanites, so their descendants would be the rightful owners, unless the Canaanites conquered it and stole it from others.  In any event, the Islamists are NOT the rightful owners under the principles I described.  In fact, there are probably no rightful owners of any land anywhere on earth under those principles.
kafir forever

Baal wrote:
Yglag, how about if the lady is dead. And someone keeps her purse for few centuries and no one claims it? Now can he keep the damn purse?


Her descendants, if there are any, would still be the rightful owners.  If there are no descendants, then other principles would have to be invoked.
Raza

Re: who is the owner?

ygalg wrote:
an old lady walking in the street, suddenly a person on skateboard pass and grab her purse and flees.
another person noticed and began pursuing the thief.
eventually he got the thief. took the purse. but surprisingly he kept to purse to himself in pretext (using the quote) "he who steals from a thief is exempt from punishment ".

is he the new rightful owner, after all he sweat for it?

if yes, does the old lady ceased to be the rightful owner?
if not, what does that makes him?

I think everyone stole something in their lives, so there is no punishment for stealing.
And In my opinion, that quoted statement has flaws, because it is not just, nor fair. The old lady is still at loss; the law which we are all governed by are aimed to make the act of illegal crimes such as stealing as if it never occurred.
ygalg

kafir forever wrote:

One could argue, also, that the Jews conquered the land and stole it from the Canaanites, so their descendants would be the rightful owners, unless the Canaanites conquered it and stole it from others.  In any event, the Islamists are NOT the rightful owners under the principles I described.  In fact, there are probably no rightful owners of any land anywhere on earth under those principles.

I have not missed that and added "consider we have no records that can confirm Jews conquered the land which known today state of Israel as the bible prescribes the events. premise they are the owners, as no previous owners (if indeed existed) came and claim it back."
ygalg

Baal wrote:
Yglag, how about if the lady is dead. And someone keeps her purse for few centuries and no one claims it? Now can he keep the damn purse?

apparently kafir forever advanced me and answered you eloquently.
ygalg

Re: who is the owner?

Raza wrote:
ygalg wrote:
an old lady walking in the street, suddenly a person on skateboard pass and grab her purse and flees.
another person noticed and began pursuing the thief.
eventually he got the thief. took the purse. but surprisingly he kept to purse to himself in pretext (using the quote) "he who steals from a thief is exempt from punishment ".

is he the new rightful owner, after all he sweat for it?

if yes, does the old lady ceased to be the rightful owner?
if not, what does that makes him?

I think everyone stole something in their lives, so there is no punishment for stealing.
And In my opinion, that quoted statement has flaws, because it is not just, nor fair. The old lady is still at loss; the law which we are all governed by are aimed to make the act of illegal crimes such as stealing as if it never occurred.

the quote means that if the lady returns back her purse from the thief by stealing. she is entitled.
some people misuse it, as this quote means; that if soemone steals from a theif, something that he himself have no ownership over it, he is exampt. this of course incorrect.
Radagast

kafir forever wrote:
Baal wrote:
Yglag, how about if the lady is dead. And someone keeps her purse for few centuries and no one claims it? Now can he keep the damn purse?


Her descendants, if there are any, would still be the rightful owners.  If there are no descendants, then other principles would have to be invoked.

Property law (ie. those pertaining to real estate) is a funny business and the logic behind those laws are sometimes counter intuitive.

Title to your possessions, like the purse, is (nowadays) often absolute. Land rights are not often absolute. Most countries, I think also in Israel, operate land titles based on what is called "fee simple" which means that title of said property stems from one's relationship to the government. This comes from the feudal days when land was granted by the ruler who is the only one who has absolute title on land (ie. allodial title).

How this applies to Palestine and Israel? I believe it is not so much which individual owned or used to own which parcel of land, but the rights of governments and peoples.


Rgds
R

Edit: to add this the last point, we are touching on the issues of What is International Law and recognition of Sovereign States and their territories. International law is predominantly determined by agreement between countries (eg. There is no real rhyme or reason why there is a 200 nautical mile economic exclusion zone around countries) or why this-is-a-country (eg. East TImor) and that-isn't-a-country (West Timor). As far as Israel is concerned, International Law formed Israel, recognized its sovereignty and through that recognized allodial title to said land to the Israeli Government.
Baal

Hello Radagast been a while.

Yglag, we have governments changing all the time. The people are the same. I mean I am not jewish but I look israeli and I can trace my family name several centuries back into a city in israel/palestine.

Can half my familty be traced to jews, sure, are we jews today, of course not. Can a jew come off a plane from Russia and claim this land is his? of course not. Where was he for 2000 years? I can speak Arabic and Libya belongued to Egypt for most of its history, can I just walk into Libya today and claim it as mine? of course not.

The claim of jews to israel can not come  from a theological/historic document. Theologically, only the jews can accept such heejeebeejees. Historically, you guys have been out for 2000 years. The city was levelled to the ground by Titus and only those who adapted stayed behind.

The claim to israel has to come from something a little more contemporary. Like how Arabs kicked jews from the vast majority of the umma and now the jews are claiming a little strip of land back.
Radagast

Baal wrote:
Hello Radagast been a while.

It has been a while, Baal.

Baal wrote:
The claim to israel has to come from something a little more contemporary. Like how Arabs kicked jews from the vast majority of the umma and now the jews are claiming a little strip of land back.

In most Western jurisdictions, if you lose "connection" to the land you once possess, you lose title to it. In modern times, there is this concept of 'escheat" or "adverse possession". If someone who doesn't actually own your land but "possess" it for (commonly) 25 years, that land becomes theirs. (In British history, especially epitomized by Australia, they are called "squatters". After a period, title passes to those squatters.)

This is why people should check the boundary of their properties. They should get a surveyor in and check their fences. If the fence line has moved to their disadvantage for over 25 years, the title passes over to the other side of the fence.

Property (ie. real estate) rights are not as black-and-white as people think.

In some parts of the world where native title is considered, eg Canada and Australia, claimants must prove "continuous connection to the land". Without that, adverse possession takes precedence.  (Coincidentally, native title is allodial rather than fee simple! An interesting and problematic legal concept in itself!)

The long and short: Arguments for the rights of Israel must stand of other grounds other than historical possession.


Rgds
R
Baal

True Radagast re:Squatters rights. However what is the statute of limitation if the jews were forcibly removed and had their businesses confiscated over the last 40-80yrs from the Umma?

How about the ones who were forcibly removed and ethnically cleansed throughout 1400yrs from the rest of the Umma.

Can we blindly apply such a controversial law as the squatters right on a nation?

Ultimately, do we want to reward thuggish behavior? If I can keep you away from your house (by whatever means necessary) long enough then it becomes mine?

I accept that you Accuse me of a holocaust but i still get to keep your land?

In my opinion, I have no moral obligation to accept the law of the Squatter Rights, while ignoring the other laws that were not followed that led to jews being kicked out of the Umma.

Why accept the law that is *against* the jews, and then ignore the laws that were *for* the jews that were not followed.
kafir forever

Radagast wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Baal wrote:
Yglag, how about if the lady is dead. And someone keeps her purse for few centuries and no one claims it? Now can he keep the damn purse?


Her descendants, if there are any, would still be the rightful owners.  If there are no descendants, then other principles would have to be invoked.

Property law (ie. those pertaining to real estate) is a funny business and the logic behind those laws are sometimes counter intuitive.

Title to your possessions, like the purse, is (nowadays) often absolute. Land rights are not often absolute. Most countries, I think also in Israel, operate land titles based on what is called "fee simple" which means that title of said property stems from one's relationship to the government. This comes from the feudal days when land was granted by the ruler who is the only one who has absolute title on land (ie. allodial title).

How this applies to Palestine and Israel? I believe it is not so much which individual owned or used to own which parcel of land, but the rights of governments and peoples.


Rgds
R

Edit: to add this the last point, we are touching on the issues of What is International Law and recognition of Sovereign States and their territories. International law is predominantly determined by agreement between countries (eg. There is no real rhyme or reason why there is a 200 nautical mile economic exclusion zone around countries) or why this-is-a-country (eg. East TImor) and that-isn't-a-country (West Timor). As far as Israel is concerned, International Law formed Israel, recognized its sovereignty and through that recognized allodial title to said land to the Israeli Government.


Radagast,

I am not arguing international law or local real estate law.  I am arguing morality and what some call "natural law."  I don't not care about soverign states or governments.  I only care about who absolutely owned a piece of real or personal property, and the transfer of that title to any subsequent owner.  Governments, if they exist at all, only have a responsibiltity to protect property rights.
Radagast

Baal wrote:
True Radagast re:Squatters rights. However what is the statute of limitation if the jews were forcibly removed and had their businesses confiscated over the last 40-80yrs from the Umma?

My point about adverse possession was merely to state that property laws are not as absolute or perpetual as they think they enjoy.

Baal wrote:
Can we blindly apply such a controversial law as the squatters right on a nation?

Clearly no. You cannot squat a country. My point really was that land titles are not as perpetual as they may seem. And countries are not as perpetual as they may seem.


Rgds
R
Radagast

kafir forever wrote:
Radagast,

I am not arguing international law or local real estate law.  I am arguing morality and what some call "natural law."  I don't not care about soverign states or governments.  I only care about who absolutely owned a piece of real or personal property, and the transfer of that title to any subsequent owner.  Governments, if they exist at all, only have a responsibiltity to protect property rights.

Hello KF,

I am aware you are arguing what you believe is moral. However, I'm pointing out that ownership of land follows a different set of norms than do personal property.

Ever since the development of States, land ownership has been tied to sovereignty. There are actually many places today where modern borders do not coincide with historical borders. Much of the modern map was determined by treaties enacted during the breakup of empires, most notably after WWI. Many countries didn't actually exist before then, and migration meant that in many places, the original inhabitants have been displaced by migration. So, what do we do.... where in history do we draw the line?



Rgds
R
kafir forever

Radagast wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Radagast,

I am not arguing international law or local real estate law.  I am arguing morality and what some call "natural law."  I don't not care about soverign states or governments.  I only care about who absolutely owned a piece of real or personal property, and the transfer of that title to any subsequent owner.  Governments, if they exist at all, only have a responsibiltity to protect property rights.

Hello KF,

I am aware you are arguing what you believe is moral. However, I'm pointing out that ownership of land follows a different set of norms than do personal property.

Ever since the development of States, land ownership has been tied to sovereignty. There are actually many places today where modern borders do not coincide with historical borders. Much of the modern map was determined by treaties enacted during the breakup of empires, most notably after WWI. Many countries didn't actually exist before then, and migration meant that in many places, the original inhabitants have been displaced by migration. So, what do we do.... where in history do we draw the line?



Rgds
R


I know that borders, historical or otherwise, are problematic, and that governments intervene.  My point is, that unless you have a theoretical starting point grounded in fundamental principals (morals), which involves the proper definition of how property titles are acquried and transferred, you have no foundation upon which to base any argument for property ownership other than brute force.

As you probably know by now, I am not politically correct, and I believe in calling a spade a spade.  If the property is owned by a thug who stole if from another thug, who stole it from a legimate property owner, then just admit it.  As far as I am concerned, government consists of thugs just as criminal gangs consist of thugs.  It is just that government claims to have a legitimate monoply on thuggery,
Radagast

kafir forever wrote:
I know that borders, historical or otherwise, are problematic, and that governments intervene.  My point is, that unless you have a theoretical starting point grounded in fundamental principals (morals), which involves the proper definition of how property titles are acquried and transferred, you have no foundation upon which to base any argument for property ownership other than brute force.

As you probably know by now, I am not politically correct, and I believe in calling a spade a spade.  If the property is owned by a thug who stole if from another thug, who stole it from a legimate property owner, then just admit it.  As far as I am concerned, government consists of thugs just as criminal gangs consist of thugs.  It is just that government claims to have a legitimate monoply on thuggery,

I'm all for some moral principle for allocation of land. Unfortunately, I fail to see how land titles are moral in the first place. The morality of "owning" one's land because one ancestor dispossess someone else in some ancient history? For example, in America, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: most of the land titles are passed on from people who dispossessed others. And as recently as 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

Why do the Turks now legitimately own their land around the Bosporus? A few hundred years ago, their ancestors came from a place in central Asia, far removed from any waters. And why are the modern Macedonians Slavic rather than Greek as they were in Alexander's time (The Slavs displaced Greeks in Macedonia back in the 5th or 6th century AD)?

It really depends on which period of history you draw on to determine who actually possessed what. There is no line fixed in stone. And hence, border disputes will continue to plague us until humans are extinct.

In my view, it is not so much about individuals owning land or holding title to land, but whether the Jews are entitled to their little piece of earth. And my answer to that would be yes... regardless of whether one bases it on some ancient religious scripture which I don't believe in in the first place. Those who said that God gave them this-or-that, must have their heads examined. But that is to be expected of an atheist.



Rgds
R
kafir forever

Radagast wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
I know that borders, historical or otherwise, are problematic, and that governments intervene.  My point is, that unless you have a theoretical starting point grounded in fundamental principals (morals), which involves the proper definition of how property titles are acquried and transferred, you have no foundation upon which to base any argument for property ownership other than brute force.

As you probably know by now, I am not politically correct, and I believe in calling a spade a spade.  If the property is owned by a thug who stole if from another thug, who stole it from a legimate property owner, then just admit it.  As far as I am concerned, government consists of thugs just as criminal gangs consist of thugs.  It is just that government claims to have a legitimate monoply on thuggery,

I'm all for some moral principle for allocation of land. Unfortunately, I fail to see how land titles are moral in the first place. The morality of "owning" one's land because one ancestor dispossess someone else in some ancient history? For example, in America, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: most of the land titles are passed on from people who dispossessed others. And as recently as 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

Why do the Turks now legitimately own their land around the Bosporus? A few hundred years ago, their ancestors came from a place in central Asia, far removed from any waters. And why are the modern Macedonians Slavic rather than Greek as they were in Alexander's time (The Slavs displaced Greeks in Macedonia back in the 5th or 6th century AD)?

It really depends on which period of history you draw on to determine who actually possessed what. There is no line fixed in stone. And hence, border disputes will continue to plague us until humans are extinct.

In my view, it is not so much about individuals owning land or holding title to land, but whether the Jews are entitled to their little piece of earth. And my answer to that would be yes... regardless of whether one bases it on some ancient religious scripture which I don't believe in in the first place. Those who said that God gave them this-or-that, must have their heads examined. But that is to be expected of an atheist.



Rgds
R


Rad, with all due respect, I think you have totally missed my point.  I am not arguing/debating anything at all about the current state of the world.  I am saying that once a proper/moral title to property (I don't give a damn whether it is real estate or personal property) is established, there cannot be "title"/right transfer whenever force/fraud is involved.  The only legitimate exception I can entertain as of now, involves the element of force.  If entity A initiates an act of aggression against entity B with the purpose of depriving entity B of its legetimate property rights, then entity B is entitled to defend itself, and if in the process, captures property rights held by entity A, then A forfeits such rights.

The practical realities of establishing this chain throughout world history is NOT the subject of my thread.  Only the moral principle of property rights and their proper transfer from owner A to owner B is the subject I am interested in.

Are you even interested in that discussion?
Radagast

kafir forever wrote:
Rad, with all due respect, I think you have totally missed my point.  I am not arguing/debating anything at all about the current state of the world.  I am saying that once a proper/moral title to property (I don't give a damn whether it is real estate or personal property) is established, there cannot be "title"/right transfer whenever force/fraud is involved.  The only legitimate exception I can entertain as of now, involves the element of force.  If entity A initiates an act of aggression against entity B with the purpose of depriving entity B of its legetimate property rights, then entity B is entitled to defend itself, and if in the process, captures property rights held by entity A, then A forfeits such rights.

The practical realities of establishing this chain throughout world history is NOT the subject of my thread.  Only the moral principle of property rights and their proper transfer from owner A to owner B is the subject I am interested in.

Are you even interested in that discussion?

Hi KF,

I'm just arguing that perpetual title to land is an immoral concept. I base it on the fact that land itself isn't an asset that has been built or made. It is usually something that someone "found" or more likely someone kicked someone else off from, and then that piece of earth is passed from one generation to another in perpetuity. Granted that the original inhabitants spent some effort in rehabilitating that land for human purposes, but to say that the earth itself is "owned" in perpetuity because of that act is immoral. The earth is not made for any one family.

Your argument of property rights transfer from one generation to the next is built on the premise that someone owns land in perpetuity. I do not think we should think of "owning" land but are the custodians for land for an age.

Perpetuity is a very very long time....


Rgds
R
kafir forever

Rad,

Thanks for the clarification in what you are thinking, even though we do not agree on the concept of land ownership. Very Happy

I am very John Locke on this while you are not, and that's fine with me.

As for "in pertuity," yes it is a long time, but not infinite.  I guess when the sun goes red giant, the concept of land ownership on Earth will be null and void. Laughing

Later,
KF
Radagast

kafir forever wrote:
Rad,

Thanks for the clarification in what you are thinking, even though we do not agree on the concept of land ownership. Very Happy

It may be one of those things that depend on one's viewpoint. It is also part of the difficulties in establishing human concepts on the natural world. There may be no definitive answer.

KF wrote:
I am very John Locke on this while you are not, and that's fine with me.

I'm not totally against Locke, but in the issue of real property rights I have some difficulty in agreeing with him. The premises for his argument are based on God. Therefore, his argument already started on a weak footing in my view.

Actually, the Jewish claim to Israel does not quite fit Locke's definition, since it is not based on the exertion of labor (in clearing the land) but on some claims that the land is a gift from God. It was not like that part of the world was devoid of people when the Israelites "found" it.

Having said that, the Lockean principles appear to work quite well for things like copyright and other physical objects.


Rgds
R
kafir forever

Radagast wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Rad,

Thanks for the clarification in what you are thinking, even though we do not agree on the concept of land ownership. Very Happy

It may be one of those things that depend on one's viewpoint. It is also part of the difficulties in establishing human concepts on the natural world. There may be no definitive answer.


Agreed.

Quote:
KF wrote:
I am very John Locke on this while you are not, and that's fine with me.

I'm not totally against Locke, but in the issue of real property rights I have some difficulty in agreeing with him. The premises for his argument are based on God. Therefore, his argument already started on a weak footing in my view.


I ignore the God part in favor of the first use and added labor concepts.

Quote:
Actually, the Jewish claim to Israel does not quite fit Locke's definition, since it is not based on the exertion of labor (in clearing the land) but on some claims that the land is a gift from God. It was not like that part of the world was devoid of people when the Israelites "found" it.


Rgds
R


I know it doesn't, and I agree with you.  The Jews killed and conquered the Caaninites, but who did the Caaniites kill and conquer, etc., etc., ...

But under any circumstances, the Arab Muslims have no more of a legitimate claim than the Jews.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home