Nostr Web Client

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

Laeserin 1y ago

Private property ownership is what differentiates humans from the other animals.

"For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction... But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey.

It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time."

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Laeserin 1y ago

God gave all humanity the Earth, and property is claimed through human action, but the resulting property is always private.

Man had possessions before the State came into existence, so his property rights cannot have come from the State.

"Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body."

Laeserin 1y ago

The natural right to property is included in the Ten Commandments.

"The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force.

The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.""

Laeserin 1y ago

#biblestr #catholic #christian

Laeserin 1y ago

"his neighbor's wife" is actually key here.

His wife belongs to him, through marriage, and marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, that neither the State nor the Church can create or break.

That is because marriage existed in Paradise, between Adam and Eve. It predates all human institutions, as those only came into existence after they left Paradise.

So private property began in Paradise.

Adam left the Garden with nothing but "his wife".

This is a good reason to turn to the ten commandments. 😁

Ruminant Llama 1y ago

Interesting perspective.

Thanks for sharing

I'm not sure I'd turn to the ten commandments first for the right to own land even though it's there. To me the ten commandments are about having the right heart posture before God.

But looking at the way God describes how the Israelites should live in Cannan makes it obvious that each family should have their own land and be able to provide for their family, and when required, their community also.

In the story in 1 Sam where the Israelites ask God for a king to make war with the surrounding nations, God gives them a king in anger after warning them that to have a standing army (something they'd never needed when God went out before them) the king would lay a heavy tax and personnel burden on them.

Hobbes suggested collective security is the reason we give our alliance to the monarch and pay our taxes. While it's valid for others to hold very different opinions than myself, I believe that if God's people were more inclined to fully trust God for our protection, there would be less state worship and less oppressive laws and therefore less taxes levied by the political class to enforce laws.

Laeserin 1y ago

He later writes:

"The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in much stronger light when considered in relation to man's social and domestic obligations. In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to observing virginity, or to bind themselves by the marriage tie. No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: "Increase and multiply."(3) Hence we have the family, the "society" of a man's house - a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.

That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance.

A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire."

Laeserin 1y ago

So, he's saying that men can band their families together with other families, to form a tribe, village, state, etc., but all property remains private and no one can be expected to excersize less control over his property than the group does because his rights come first, both in time and in weight.

This would also require that he can revoke the common use of his property, for instance.

Yeah, I caught that. It then follows that they can choose to create a standing army and pay for it, or trust in God alone for protection.

It stands that there is no obligation on any family to provide for others. Although, first the law and then Jesus made it obvious we should be willing to aid those within our community who are in need, even though we are not obliged.

It also stands that we can choose to associate with whom we desire and disassociate with those who go against collective desires. After all we are our own property, not forced to do more than protect and provide for that which we have brought into existence (family).

Laeserin 1y ago

Yes.

What we are not supposed to do is try to stay within the tribe or state and disdain the association rules. That is merely disrespect.

We either have to leave the association, overthrow it, or reform it. Or split into different associations with different rules.

But we should always be allowed to leave. The DDR didn't allow anyone to leave. Same with modern North Korea or Cuba.

This is why socialism leads to excommunication: it inherently denies people the right to own themselves.

The association rules in modern states are BS. They're made up by a parasitic elite class who say they stand for us but only stand to acquire more power. The proof the rules are so extensive and BS and not indicative of how most individuals want to live is in the fact that we unwittingly break so many daily.

A better set of rule follows the ten commandments and law of Jesus, "Love God and love your neighbour as yourself". In secular speak the libertarian refrain, "don't hurt people and don't touch their stuff"(non-aggression principle) also works. Any laws made outside of those parameters are bureaucratic BS intended to show the power of the state and enslave humanity in the name of 'society'.

Jesus's way of overthrowing the clutches of the state seems upside down to us. The scriptures say he alone is seated with all authority in the heavens, He alone is the King of King's. His people aren't to create a revolution here nor are we capable of starting a kingdom on earth (although the ecclesia counts as this) we are to abide by His life through the power of the Holy Spirit. My citizenship is in heaven before it is in Australia. I will do things the same way King Jesus did... Be about kingdom business and ignore the state as much as I can.

Laeserin 1y ago

That is also a choice.

I'm an American, so my tendency is to want to create a new state.

The Beave 1y ago

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

Catchy, but, not in the Bible.

Laeserin 1y ago

The responsibility to overthrow tyranny is literally written into the American and German association founding documents.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

And the Constitution allows for States circumventing the Federal government by calling a constitutional convention.

GERMAN BASIC LAW

"Article 20

[Constitutional principles – Right of resistance]

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available."

The documents that create nation states were not written by God as much as some Americans like to pretent theirs was. That's a lie perpetuated by the politicians to exploit religious moralising for their own nefarious ends.

Laeserin 1y ago

Irrelevant to the argument that I was making. The rules of the association can contain a right to overthrow the association leadership.

Oh, I thought you were responding to Beave.

Laeserin 1y ago

I was. I was making the point that I don't need the Bible for this one.

I have no idea what Australia's constitution may or may not say. Maybe we have the "right" to change stuff, maybe we don't. I never saw, let alone signed onto, this so called social-contract. That's just a small part of why I don't really acknowledge the authority of politicians.

Laeserin 1y ago

We are sometimes bound by contracts our ancestors signed, but we can always choose to leave the association and go someplace else, as they once did.

But it wasn't until man developed money, that he could acquire more land than was necessary to satisfy his needs, for without money and the preservation of that which he grows, man would have no use for land beyond what he needs to sustain himself.

Posessions are very different than property, and the labour value definition of property, used by Locke et al., was used to dispossess indigenous peoples of their land.

Laeserin 1y ago

possession ≠ ownership

Laeserin 1y ago

But it is 9/10ths of the law. 😉

If you are interested, this an excellent chapter on property rights and aboriginal rights. I could also scan a copy if you are interested:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/an-approach-to-political-philosophy/rediscovering-america-the-two-treatises-and-aboriginal-rights/A5DA6953401ABFBC6D63A86084FF75AD#

Laeserin 1y ago

I'm reading three books simultaneously, already. 🙈😂

Aren’t we all? 😜😂

Laeserin 1y ago

😂

The Beave 1y ago

Uh, no. Money is not needed to acquire too much. Strength or subterfuge is enough to do that without money.

I meant that once money was invented, man could store the excess production from their land in a currency. Before the advent of money, a farmer could only make what they could trade, before it spoiled.

The Beave 1y ago

Ah. That is a much clearer point and I wouldn't argue with that.

Before money, there wasn’t any incentive to acquire as much land as one could.

The Beave 1y ago

I can't really agree with that, though. I think that's at least one or three steps too far without any real corroboration that I know of or can think of

I’d like to hear why you think that’s wrong?

What incentive would there to be own a large tract of land if you can’t store the wealth that it produces?