FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
who is the owner?
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
ygalg
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 39


Location: israel
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:01 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ygalg
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 39


Location: israel
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:18 am    Post subject: Re: who is the owner? Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Radagast



Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 15



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Radagast



Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 15



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Radagast



Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 15



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Radagast on Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Radagast



Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 15



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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,

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum