tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post8269188296983412484..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Aquinas on Propertygcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-19480595551568115352011-07-07T18:22:39.385-04:002011-07-07T18:22:39.385-04:00Avram, context, please, context. Aquinas didn'...Avram, context, please, context. Aquinas didn't say it's always OK to take anything if you are hungry. I believe he's thinking of a situation where, say, a farmer has a big field of corn, and a hungry man eats just enough to live, leaving the farmer plenty. You didn't have plenty of wallets left after you were robbed, did you?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-20320330283457838712011-07-07T04:50:08.097-04:002011-07-07T04:50:08.097-04:00In many countries poverty stricken people will pic...In many countries poverty stricken people will pickpocket you if you do not know how to handle this. For example you should always carry your wallet and documents in special pouches under your clothes, these pouches are purchaseable at the post office.<br /><br />There are many cases of toursits losing large sums of cash, passports, credit cards, identification, cameras, phones and other electronic devices - just for wanting to travel the streets.<br /><br />It is also the case that many of the people taking these things might die the next day if they don't resort to this action.<br /><br />However I think Aquinas and now Gene Callahan is crazy for telling me these dudes don't actually steal anything from me when they take my credit card.Avramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02534037534422323190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-47938174336283693442011-07-06T13:07:38.546-04:002011-07-06T13:07:38.546-04:00The oppression of blacks in the US was a serious s...The oppression of blacks in the US was a serious social problem, and a serious injustice towards blacks. Legislation was able to address and improve this problem, and therefore was justified, IMHO. There is nothing wrong with the law forcing people to act morally; the issue is, will the attempt make things better or worse? In this case, it clearly (IMHO) made things better.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-76256594220412983312011-07-06T12:40:12.906-04:002011-07-06T12:40:12.906-04:00Fair point -- in that discussion, the (explicit) r...Fair point -- in that discussion, the (explicit) reference to Thomas was on the matter of the state forcing people to act morally. Nevertheless, this Thomian position on property *is* your basis for rejecting propertarian criticisms of discrimination law, and *was* the view you were arguing from in that thread.<br /><br />So how do you reconcile the two? Are you claiming that the right to drink in whitey's bar is one of those "great needs"? (Or is this one of those things that requires an apprenticeship until someone proves otherwise?)Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-226797795015371662011-07-06T12:13:03.680-04:002011-07-06T12:13:03.680-04:00We were not mentioning Aquinas on property in that...We were not mentioning Aquinas on property in that thread, Silas. You STILL have not gone and read the link Blackadder provided, have you, or you would know it's not about property rights.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-57893542869553862512011-07-06T12:10:44.281-04:002011-07-06T12:10:44.281-04:00So, Silas, every time I merely agree with someone ...<i>So, Silas, every time I merely agree with someone else's remark ("yep, that's right!") I have to provide a full philosophical justification for the position the other person put forward, even though he ALREADY PROVIDED A LINK TO A PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION.</i><br /><br />No, every time you are deeply involved in an unproductive discussion, in which you are ultimately drawing from philosopher X's views on subject Y in that context, and you are capable of summarizing its key points in two sentences (like you just did in this blog post), you should provide that summarized basis.<br /><br />Not so crushing a burden, I don't think.<br /><br />And again, how was I wrong to guess that, when you mentioned agreement with Thomas Aquinas on property, you were indicating agreement that property, "is [not] some cosmically ordained, inviolable 'right'; when it does not suit human needs, its rules need to be set aside... In cases of great need, using what would normally be the private property of another is NOT stealing." ?<br /><br />Seems to me that my guess (at the time) was right on! So now I'm waiting for you to reveal the secret justification for how that bolsters your position on discirmination law, or else admit your confusion or misapplication of your favored philosophy.Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-48387669134798316052011-07-06T11:45:00.919-04:002011-07-06T11:45:00.919-04:00So, Silas, every time I merely agree with someone ...So, Silas, every time I merely agree with someone else's remark ("yep, that's right!") I have to provide a full philosophical justification for the position the other person put forward, even though he ALREADY PROVIDED A LINK TO A PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION.<br /><br />So you don't have to bother clicking on his link? Which apparently you still haven't, which is why you don't yet see your guess was wrong?<br /><br />Do you realize how stupid you are sounding? (I know you are NOT stupid, which is why I say "sounding." Merely petulant, which makes you appear stupid.)gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62134674774917089392011-07-06T11:37:32.315-04:002011-07-06T11:37:32.315-04:00Sorry for the sloppiness on the last comment (if i...Sorry for the sloppiness on the last comment (if it's accepted): scruity -> scrutiny, "never should been" --> "never should have been".<br /><br />Also, does anyone have a theory as to why merchants haven't been leaving unsupervised food around in high-poverty communities where Thomism holds significant influence?<br /><br />Re your comments about the previous discussion: None of 1-2) justify not providing the two sentences it would have taken to explain the (immensely-clarifying) basis for your position. Whether or not it was Blackadder who initially invoked St. Thomas, you were drawing from an ideol... philosophy of property, which would have bene helpful to say explicitly, as it would have ensured a more fruitful exchange.<br /><br />3) I did not get your position wrong (where do you think I did?), only (perhaps) applications of it, in which case I was *asking* if you accept that application.Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-13956288633656226472011-07-06T11:30:26.085-04:002011-07-06T11:30:26.085-04:00"And why couldn't back then you give the ..."And why couldn't back then you give the summary you just gave now, so I didn't have to correctly guess what you meant?"<br /><br />OK, Silas, I just went and looked this up, and:<br />1) It was Blackadder who brought up Aquinas at Free Advice, not me. I just said, "Yep, he got it."<br />2) Blackadder linked to a passage from the Summa that explicitly stated what was being talked about; no one gave you any reason to guess at what was being referenced.<br />3) And when you did guess "I" (Blackadder) meant, you got it wrong.<br /><br />Living with an imaginary past is not serving you well.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-20706891722482101562011-07-06T10:18:11.770-04:002011-07-06T10:18:11.770-04:00'Are you saying that e.g. opening food sellers...'Are you saying that e.g. opening food sellers to judicial scrutiny for who they sell to "served a great need" after 1964, but not before?'<br /><br />Huh? Did I somewhere claim that the 1964 Civil Rights Act should not have been passed in 1963, or 62?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-46308563178306302962011-07-06T10:14:10.322-04:002011-07-06T10:14:10.322-04:00You invoked St. Thomas's views on property in ...You invoked St. Thomas's views on property in the discussion on discrimination law, and I (haphazardly but correctly) believed this distinction was what you were referring to. So how does it apply to anti-discrimination law and the (nebulous) distinction between private and public establishments?<br /><br />Are you saying that e.g. opening food sellers to judicial scrutiny for who they sell to "served a great need" after 1964, but not before?<br /><br />(And why couldn't back then you give the summary you just gave now, so I didn't have to correctly guess what you meant?)Silas Bartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480427306873460464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-86476993113530253172011-07-06T00:15:33.608-04:002011-07-06T00:15:33.608-04:00Hey traumerei, what are all these secret blogs to ...Hey traumerei, what are all these secret blogs to which I am not invited?!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-57482607023551835752011-07-06T00:12:48.666-04:002011-07-06T00:12:48.666-04:00I forgot about St. Thomas' great arguments in ...I forgot about St. Thomas' great arguments in favor of private property. His erroneous views on money and interest have unfairly colored my perception on some of his economic thinking.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.com