Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away a gay couple

[Enoch the Red]

You may believe that private property is sacrosanct, and I may understand those beliefs. But that may not translate to our reality of a rapidly changing inter-connected world.

In our rapidly changing, inter-connected world this belief is more important than ever.

If a majority of US land/property is eventually owned by foreign investors , would you still be espousing private property rights? Or would you advocate for the minority that doesn't own any property?

Absolutely I would advocate for private property rights. If the majority of people abused the freedom of speech, would you still be an advocate of it?

Property is by nature a human concept which can't have any attributes "by nature".

Are you saying that animals don't have territory, or property?

Have you ever owned a dog?

[Khendraja'aro]

Are you saying that animals don't have territory, or property?

Have you ever owned a dog?

Your dog is able to sell his property, rent it to others or inherit it to his pups? "Territory" and "Property" are very different concepts.

[Enoch the Red]

Your dog is able to sell his property, rent it to others or inherit it to his pups? "Territory" and "Property" are very different concepts.

Dogs often choose who they allow on their property, who can play with their toys, who can eat their food. Dogs, (and other animals) have a clear understanding of ownership and property.

Dogs don't write literature either, but that doesn't mean they don't communicate.

[earthJoker]

.....that's why civil rights aren't something to be voted upon by the majority.

As I said, there is no choice to this. Those right have to be enforced by someone otherwise they are worth nothing. So you are born in China, what does your civil rights you are born with help you? Nothing.

[earthJoker]

Are you saying that animals don't have territory, or property?

No, Yes.

They have a territory, but don't own them. If a bigger dog wants the territory it takes it. What dogs have is the right of the stronger.

[Enoch the Red]

They have a territory, but don't own them. If a bigger dog wants the territory it takes it. What dogs have is the right of the stronger.

This happens to humans as well, therefore property doesn't exist?

Absurd.

[earthJoker]

This happens to humans as well, therefore property doesn't exist?

Absurd.

If someone starts to live in my apartment I call the police. Does your dog do this as well?

Property rights are enforced by the government. You can sue someone who brakes those rights.

[Khendraja'aro]

Dogs often choose who they allow on their property, who can play with their toys, who can eat their food. Dogs, (and other animals) have a clear understanding of ownership and property.

That, my dear, you'll have to prove. As of now, we only have your sayso for it.

And please refrain from using anecdotes.

[earthJoker]

Khen, do you think that understanding of ownership needs self awareness? I do, because how can you define ownership if you don't know your 'own', how can something belong to me if you don't know what 'me' is.

[Enoch the Red]

If someone starts to live in my apartment I call the police. Does your dog do this as well?

Property rights are enforced by the government.

So are human rights. Do you think that people in China aren't as human as those in the West?

[earthJoker]

Do you think that people in China aren't as human as those in the West?

No.

Are human rights enforced by the Chineese government? Yes, no? Please answer.

Then answer if this makes them more or less human than Amerikans.

[Enoch the Red]

Are human rights enforced by the Chineese government? Yes, no? Please answer.

They absolutely are not.

Then answer if this makes them more or less human than Amerikans.

It means that we don't derive rights from government, and that believing we do is a pernicious lie.

And please refrain from using anecdotes.

No, I don't think I will. I've owned several dogs, and they clearly displayed ownership of certain toys, and areas. They marked their territory, chose their toys, and defended them both. They would also choose who could or couldn't play with them, my dear.

[earthJoker]

They absolutely are not.

It means that we don't derive rights from government, and that believing we do is a pernicious lie.

You are not answering my question. And no it doesn't mean that.

No, I don't think I will. I've owned several dogs..

Fail.

[Khendraja'aro]

No, I don't think I will. I've owned several dogs, and they clearly displayed ownership of certain toys, and areas. They marked their territory, chose their toys, and defended them both. They would also choose who could or couldn't play with them, my dear.

Shows to me that you still have not understood the difference between territory and property. And you have nothing to show but anecdotes. Sorry, but that makes your opinion count for nothing.

[earthJoker]

The difference between possession and property is also very important in this case. The idea of possession comes much closer to the natural fact of "being in control" over something.

[Wraith]

You're all wrong! Property can only exist on classes of certain programming languages. You are not a C# class, so you cannot have a property any more than a dog can!

[Aimless]

Hang on, isn't the right to property endorsed by Kant himself?

[Khendraja'aro]

Hang on, isn't the right to property endorsed by Kant himself?

With caveats. As far as I have understood it, there is the issue of "initial acquisition" - who acquired the property first from whom or where. Every purchase you do is a derived contract - you get the item from someone who himself got the item from someone else and so on. However, there must be a beginning.

Which means there are two possibilities:
a) res nullius - the item belonged to no one and simply was up for grabs.
b) res omnium - the item belonged to everyone and thus every acquisition of said item is dependant on the consent of everyone else, as acquisition without consent would be a violation of the natural principle of freedom.

The latter position is Kant's. The "consent of everyone" is then later represented by the state. Which in turn means that you "own" something only by the sufferance of the state.

Thus I dare say that Kant would not necessarily argue for this couple...

[Aimless]

I don't know about this couple, but how does Kant feel about intellectual property, or new things such as an organisation that did not exist prior to its conception?

[earthJoker]

Also interesting, how would Enoch the Red's dog feel about intellectual property?

[GGT]

[...]

When rights and liberties are derived from the government and legislation, as opposed to guaranteed by birthright, you open yourself to governmental abuse. If the government becomes capable of deciding who is or isn't fully human, in the short term it can be beneficial. You can try to force misguided people to change, or give justice to those who are being mistreated. In the long term you are allowing the government to decide who has rights, and what rights they have.

Owning property isn't a guaranteed birthright, though.

[Veldan Rath]

Owning property isn't a guaranteed birthright, though.

???

[Being]

???

Property rights are granted through written laws. You have no birthright to property in this country.

[Veldan Rath]

Property rights are granted through written laws. You have no birthright to property in this country.

Huh, so the Fed can take this iPad out of my hands at anytime save for the fact that a law was written?

Which one?

[Flixy]

The constitution, I assume. There is no inherent right to owning stuff.

[Being]

Huh, so the Fed can take this iPad out of my hands at anytime save for the fact that a law was written?

Which one?

If you are breaking a written law (for example: storing illegal content, planning a murder, etc...) then yes it can be taken away from you.

[Khendraja'aro]

Huh, so the Fed can take this iPad out of my hands at anytime save for the fact that a law was written?

Which one?

Read the 5th amendment.

[Illusions]

???

Since Being seems to have missed it, I'm assuming what GGT is referring to is the fact that owning property is not a guaranteed right (since property is not something you are born with, but gain during your life), but that if we own property, the government isn't allowed to take it away.

[Being]

Since Being seems to have missed, I'm assumed what GGT is referring to is the fact that owning property is not a guaranteed right (since property is not something you are born with, but gain during your life), but that if we own property, the government isn't allowed to take it away.

...unless you do something illegal with it.

[Khendraja'aro]

...unless you do something illegal with it.

Actually, "unless proper legal recourse is followed."

See also: "Eminent domain".