Re: Fwd: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

Janice,

1. how do you define what you mean by "my" resources given your distinction
between sovereignty and ownership?
2. do you acknowledge Locke's "enough and as good" proviso or not?
3. if you don't acknowledge Locke's enough and as good proviso, do you
reject the Founders' Lockean understanding of natural law property rights?
4. if you acknowledge Locke's enough and as good proviso or something like
it, and you admit that property ownership does not equal absolute
sovereignty, do you still argue that any restriction on or taxation of
property for the benefit of the poor is "theft?" If so, what is the basis
in property theory / moral philosophy for that assertion?
5. do you agree with the *Lochner* majority that assertions of individual
property rights override majority preferences for legislatively enacted
economic regulation? if so, how do you square that with the Founders'
vision of a democratic federal republic? Would you agree with Robert Bork
that *Lochner *was "an abomination," or not?

On Jan 22, 2008 1:14 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:

> At 01:03 PM 1/22/2008, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> Moreover, contrary to the extremist libertarian rhetoric, the scope of
> potential property rights is not summed up by the poles of absolute
> individual ownership vs. absolute state ownership.
>
>
> *@ *To repeat what I wrote to Burgy:
>
> You're wanting to talk about oranges when I'm talking about apples.
>
> Ownership (apples) doesn't necessarily equate with sovereignty (oranges).
> *If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not
> ownership.*
>
> Stop arguing about the bottom line. I will help the poor . You will help
> the poor. But don't attempt to steal from me what's mine so that you can
> use my resources to help the poor.
>
> Got it?
>
> ~ Janice
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 22 13:25:16 2008