Private Property: The Basis of Social Order?

By -
"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.…There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles‘ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." (Acts 4:32–35)

Comments

  1. marris12:55 AM

    Sheesh. And I thought 10 percent was tough.

    My only consolation is that it doesn't say that the ones who failed to do this were locked up. But I guess they would have been excluded from the Christian missionary community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gabe Ruth8:15 AM

      Get a load of the next chapter. (Although the problem wasn't exactly withholding a portion so much as giving others to believe that they hadn't.)

      Delete
  2. Gabe Ruth1:05 AM

    There's a blogger named Will Shetterly who posts a "socialist Bible verse of the day". I remember the cognitive dissonance I felt the first time I read that passage on my own. A good reminder of how far we are from home.

    ReplyDelete
  3. August11:15 AM

    Odd how transitory this situation was. It is even written in the past tense. If it is read as a proto-socialist text, well it sounds really lame because it doesn't even last a generation.
    If, instead, this is about a group of people who determine to sell everything they have in order that they can live and work together- i.e. using private property and freedom of association in order to put what they felt should be the basis of social order into effect, then it makes sense. In the first view Christianity is fundamentally a failure from the 1st gen onward; in the second we see the 1st gen's acts largely as separating themselves from the larger society, becoming a contrast society, and subsequent generations evolving and growing the new society.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more