Changes

: In one sense, that Americans had the right to absolutely own, made America the "Promised Land" to many immigrants. In other nations, they had no absolute ownership (especially Socialist nations). The great tragedy is that since 1935, the U.S.A. has been a socialist nation, and her people unwittingly gave away their precious birthright.--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: In one sense, that Americans had the right to absolutely own, made America the "Promised Land" to many immigrants. In other nations, they had no absolute ownership (especially Socialist nations). The great tragedy is that since 1935, the U.S.A. has been a socialist nation, and her people unwittingly gave away their precious birthright.--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Even assuming all that's correct, my point is that this is an ''American legal definition'', which doesn't take into account other countries and popular usage.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Even assuming all that's correct, my point is that this is an ''American legal definition'', which doesn't take into account other countries and popular usage.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, the bit about what the Bible means has an unstated assumption that, if wrong (as I believe it to be) destroys the argument.  The sentence is "Since ''there can be no collective absolute ownership'', the only valid conclusion is that individual men are endowed with the birthright to absolutely own themselves, the fruits of their labor, and that which they harmlessly acquire, including land." (my emphasis).  The emphasised phrase is unsupported, unintuitive, and as far as I'm concerned, plain wrong.  And if anything, this biblical point says the exact opposite.  Because "man" (i.e. mankind or humanity) is given ownership of the Earth, that in itself suggests ''collective'' ownership.  The disputed phrase is what manages to turn this suggestion 180 degrees to mean the opposite.

Also, the bit about what the Bible means has an unstated assumption that, if wrong (as I believe it to be) destroys the argument.  The sentence is "Since ''there can be no collective absolute ownership'', the only valid conclusion is that individual men are endowed with the birthright to absolutely own themselves, the fruits of their labor, and that which they harmlessly acquire, including land." (my emphasis).  The emphasised phrase is unsupported, unintuitive, and as far as I'm concerned, plain wrong.  And if anything, this biblical point says the exact opposite.  Because "man" (i.e. mankind or humanity) is given ownership of the Earth, that in itself suggests ''collective'' ownership.  The disputed phrase is what manages to turn this suggestion 180 degrees to mean the opposite.

: When two or more "own" something, there is always a potential for conflict. Therefore it is impossible for ALL parties to exercise ABSOLUTE ownership over property held in common. When two or more have ownership, it devolves into qualified ownership.--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: When two or more "own" something, there is always a potential for conflict. Therefore it is impossible for ALL parties to exercise ABSOLUTE ownership over property held in common. When two or more have ownership, it devolves into qualified ownership.--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I guess it depends on what you mean by "absolute" ownership.  What you are really saying is that if two people jointly own something ''neither of those two'' can claim "absolute" ownership (obviously, because it is ''joint'' ownership).  But if "absolute ownership" means that nobody outside those joint owners has any say or control over that land, it can surely still be described as "absolute" ownership.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I guess it depends on what you mean by "absolute" ownership.  What you are really saying is that if two people jointly own something ''neither of those two'' can claim "absolute" ownership (obviously, because it is ''joint'' ownership).  But if "absolute ownership" means that nobody outside those joint owners has any say or control over that land, it can surely still be described as "absolute" ownership.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Further, whilst I definitely agree that the Bible recognises private property (else laws against theft are pointless), I would also say that the Bible recognises no such thing as ''absolute'' right or ownership.  Although man has been given the Earth, ''everything'' belongs to God, so our "right" to property is actually a right to make use of ''His'' property.

Further, whilst I definitely agree that the Bible recognises private property (else laws against theft are pointless), I would also say that the Bible recognises no such thing as ''absolute'' right or ownership.  Although man has been given the Earth, ''everything'' belongs to God, so our "right" to property is actually a right to make use of ''His'' property.

: Either God gave dominion to man, or He didn't. If God kept ownership then He did not give dominion to man. It may be a popular theme that mankind is merely a steward of "God's Earth", but if you rely upon scripture, God gave it to man, period. Those who wish property owners to meekly surrender their private property may encourage ignorance of absolute ownership, but the law has always recognized that securing property rights is job #1. --[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: Either God gave dominion to man, or He didn't. If God kept ownership then He did not give dominion to man. It may be a popular theme that mankind is merely a steward of "God's Earth", but if you rely upon scripture, God gave it to man, period. Those who wish property owners to meekly surrender their private property may encourage ignorance of absolute ownership, but the law has always recognized that securing property rights is job #1. --[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, God gave dominion to man, but what does that mean?  More specifically, what does the Bible mean by "dominion"?  Looking up four versions, the AV and Amplified use the word "dominion", whilst the NIV and NASB say "rule over".  And one can rule under authority of another.  I don't know the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, but so far I see no evidence that the rule over Earth was absolute in the sense that you seem to be claiming.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, God gave dominion to man, but what does that mean?  More specifically, what does the Bible mean by "dominion"?  Looking up four versions, the AV and Amplified use the word "dominion", whilst the NIV and NASB say "rule over".  And one can rule under authority of another.  I don't know the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, but so far I see no evidence that the rule over Earth was absolute in the sense that you seem to be claiming.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would also ask, what if a husband and wife jointly own property?  Is it therefore not "private property" because it's not owned by an ''individual''?  The distinction is arbitrary and without apparent foundation.

I would also ask, what if a husband and wife jointly own property?  Is it therefore not "private property" because it's not owned by an ''individual''?  The distinction is arbitrary and without apparent foundation.

: If you examine "coverture", the legal transfer of the wife's property to her husband, you'll recognize the preservation of private property status. Since marriage was the legal joining of two families and their property for the benefit of progeny, coverture (ownership of the family property by the husband) preserved absolute ownership by an individual of the family property. --[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If you examine "coverture", the legal transfer of the wife's property to her husband, you'll recognize the preservation of private property status. Since marriage was the legal joining of two families and their property for the benefit of progeny, coverture (ownership of the family property by the husband) preserved absolute ownership by an individual of the family property. --[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 10:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I asked about ''joint'' ownership by a husband and wife, and your reply was about ownership by a husband only.  However, I guess that the joint ownership question is covered above anyway, and doesn't need to be repeated here.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I asked about ''joint'' ownership by a husband and wife, and your reply was about ownership by a husband only.  However, I guess that the joint ownership question is covered above anyway, and doesn't need to be repeated here.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)