4 ms·

§42 is something that is still relevant today, should be, with regardless of housing and such > If a man rented a field for cultivation but has not produced an

§42 is something that is still relevant today, should be, with regardless of housing and such > If a man rented a field for cultivation but has not produced any grain in the field, he will be convicted of not working the field and will give the owner of the field grain corresponding to his neighbors.

casenmgreen 2y ago
Forcing others to do what you want generally does not end well.
- superb_dev 2y ago
  That’s kinda what the state does though. Any law is gonna be forcing someone to do (or not do) something.
  - casenmgreen 2y ago
    The basic rule I think of it that everything must be voluntary, and well-informed, except in self-defence. You can't force people, you can't trick people, unless it's self-defence, then all bets are off. I think the State to the extent it adheres to this acts justly, and to the extent it does not, does not. So when I say that forcing others to do what you want generally ends badly, I mean that but taking this rule into account.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Except the taxman doesn’t care what you think.
      - logicchains 2y ago
        He does care if enough people point their guns at him, and indeed America was founded on people taking up arms against the taxman.
        lazide 2y ago
        And now?
        logicchains 2y ago
        It could still happen again in America if enough people get pissed off enough to act.
        lazide 2y ago
        Uh huh. Is that what you tell the IRS?
        panta 2y ago
        So Trump supporters attacking Capitol are justified? This is not how democracy is expected to work.
        Mordisquitos 2y ago
        > America was founded on people taking up arms against the taxman [while lacking political enfranchisement]. The second half of the slogan "no taxation without representation" is not a minor detail. In fact the Tea Act [0] —which motivated the Boston Tea Party protests, to which the British government's escalation in response eventually led to the American Revolution— was not an act establishing or increasing any tax. On the contrary, the Tea Act was actually reducing taxes and duties on tea! The idea that the American Revolution was triggered by "taxation" shouldn't be retconned under modern eyes into believing that the colonists were against the idea of taxation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act
      - ElFitz 2y ago
        Especially in countries with housing taxes (you pay based on where you live, independently of how much you earn or wether or not you earn anything) and property tax (based on an estimated value of what is owned, independently of any revenue). In some places, it would almost seem merely existing is ground enough for taxes.
  - atoav 2y ago
    The deal with the state is in principle the following: 1. If you have a conflict with some other person/family/clan the buck needs to stop somewhere otherwise you just swap murders back and forth indefinitely 2. Having the buck stop with another (third?) person/family/clan is unaccaptable to most persons/families/clans, why would you voluntarily yield power to them? 3. Having learnd from centuries of bloodshed and oppression you develop a system where you can collectively decide on with whom the buck stops and more important: a system where you can remove someone if you are collectively unhappy with their performance in that position. Now there are a myriad possible ways of doing 3, with some of them tracking the collective will more closely than others, with different definitions of who is included in the collective, with different ways of persisting certain elements through the power transition etc. But anybody who knows about history and politics knows that without that you will even have more chaotic, violent and oppressive circumstances. Unless you happen to be in the clan that is currently in power and you happen to have no war and/or bloody throne-fight during your life.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
logicchains 2y ago
This is terrible for long-term ecological health. The soil needs time to recover, and if it's constantly farmed, the soil just gets more and more depleted. A very early example of well-intentioned regulations ending up causing more harm than good (and indeed, much of what used to be fertile farmland in that part of the world is now desert from over-farming).
- ubutler 2y ago
  > and indeed, much of what used to be fertile farmland in that part of the world is now desert from over-farming Do you have a source for this?
lordgrenville 2y ago
I understand you to be reading this as progressive, whereas I see it as the opposite: if you rent land but do not have the money to pay (for whatever reason) the rent still has to be paid.
Ekaros 2y ago
There is probably cases of essentially fraud where it is litigated today too. Like you rent something and promise share of revenue, but then do not actual do anything. Contracts are hopefully very much better defined. But in standard arrangement where you promise to work fields and promise to give part of harvest to land owner it is obvious that you should not be excused of not actually doing that.
pakitan 2y ago
Yes, that's exactly how rent works nowadays. You rent a piece of real estate and you pay the rent. So, yes, it's still relevant today but not particularly noteworthy.

casenmgreen 2y ago

Forcing others to do what you want generally does not end well.

superb_dev 2y ago
That’s kinda what the state does though. Any law is gonna be forcing someone to do (or not do) something.
- casenmgreen 2y ago
  The basic rule I think of it that everything must be voluntary, and well-informed, except in self-defence. You can't force people, you can't trick people, unless it's self-defence, then all bets are off. I think the State to the extent it adheres to this acts justly, and to the extent it does not, does not. So when I say that forcing others to do what you want generally ends badly, I mean that but taking this rule into account.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Except the taxman doesn’t care what you think.
    - logicchains 2y ago
      He does care if enough people point their guns at him, and indeed America was founded on people taking up arms against the taxman.
      - lazide 2y ago
        And now?
        logicchains 2y ago
        It could still happen again in America if enough people get pissed off enough to act.
        lazide 2y ago
        Uh huh. Is that what you tell the IRS?
      - panta 2y ago
        So Trump supporters attacking Capitol are justified? This is not how democracy is expected to work.
      - Mordisquitos 2y ago
        > America was founded on people taking up arms against the taxman [while lacking political enfranchisement]. The second half of the slogan "no taxation without representation" is not a minor detail. In fact the Tea Act [0] —which motivated the Boston Tea Party protests, to which the British government's escalation in response eventually led to the American Revolution— was not an act establishing or increasing any tax. On the contrary, the Tea Act was actually reducing taxes and duties on tea! The idea that the American Revolution was triggered by "taxation" shouldn't be retconned under modern eyes into believing that the colonists were against the idea of taxation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act
    - ElFitz 2y ago
      Especially in countries with housing taxes (you pay based on where you live, independently of how much you earn or wether or not you earn anything) and property tax (based on an estimated value of what is owned, independently of any revenue). In some places, it would almost seem merely existing is ground enough for taxes.
- atoav 2y ago
  The deal with the state is in principle the following: 1. If you have a conflict with some other person/family/clan the buck needs to stop somewhere otherwise you just swap murders back and forth indefinitely 2. Having the buck stop with another (third?) person/family/clan is unaccaptable to most persons/families/clans, why would you voluntarily yield power to them? 3. Having learnd from centuries of bloodshed and oppression you develop a system where you can collectively decide on with whom the buck stops and more important: a system where you can remove someone if you are collectively unhappy with their performance in that position. Now there are a myriad possible ways of doing 3, with some of them tracking the collective will more closely than others, with different definitions of who is included in the collective, with different ways of persisting certain elements through the power transition etc. But anybody who knows about history and politics knows that without that you will even have more chaotic, violent and oppressive circumstances. Unless you happen to be in the clan that is currently in power and you happen to have no war and/or bloody throne-fight during your life.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

logicchains 2y ago

This is terrible for long-term ecological health. The soil needs time to recover, and if it's constantly farmed, the soil just gets more and more depleted. A very early example of well-intentioned regulations ending up causing more harm than good (and indeed, much of what used to be fertile farmland in that part of the world is now desert from over-farming).

ubutler 2y ago
> and indeed, much of what used to be fertile farmland in that part of the world is now desert from over-farming Do you have a source for this?

lordgrenville 2y ago

I understand you to be reading this as progressive, whereas I see it as the opposite: if you rent land but do not have the money to pay (for whatever reason) the rent still has to be paid.

Ekaros 2y ago

There is probably cases of essentially fraud where it is litigated today too. Like you rent something and promise share of revenue, but then do not actual do anything. Contracts are hopefully very much better defined. But in standard arrangement where you promise to work fields and promise to give part of harvest to land owner it is obvious that you should not be excused of not actually doing that.

pakitan 2y ago

Yes, that's exactly how rent works nowadays. You rent a piece of real estate and you pay the rent. So, yes, it's still relevant today but not particularly noteworthy.