5 ms·
"Usury" is still a word in use but now, for legal purposes, it means "interest that a lender charges a borrower at a rate above the lawful ceiling on such charg
by hvs 3mo ago
"Usury" is still a word in use but now, for legal purposes, it means "interest that a lender charges a borrower at a rate above the lawful ceiling on such charges" rather than just any interest at all.
- bombcar 3mo agoIt had a very specific meaning, which we would more properly translate as "personal recourse loan".
- fsckboy 3mo agotraditional usage of usury was the same, any interest charges at a rate above the lawful ceiling, just where the ceiling was 0% for christians and in a like manner for moslems.
- lo_zamoyski 3mo agoThat's a strange way to phrase things. It's a bit like saying that the Church recognizes the licitness of murder under a lawful ceiling, but that this ceiling just happens to be 0 per year. Interest as such is recognized as theft and therefore an injustice.
- neaden 3mo agoWell murder is similar in that it means an illegal or immoral killing. There are times (say in self defence) where it has taunt it is moral and should be legal to kill, because that isn't murder. So similar to this, it changed usury to illegal lending rather than lending.
- geye1234 3mo agoHow far would you take this? Let's grant that the difference between murder and a just killing is what someone (maybe the guy in power) says it is, nothing more. Would you say the same about robbery? Is it only robbery to point a gun at someone and take his money if someone says it is? If yes, at what point does the distinction between one thing and another thing become real, and not just based on what some guy says?
- neaden 3mo agoWell yes, there are times where it legal to take someones possessions/money such as if they owe a debt or have a legal judgement against them. In that case it could mean for instance sheriff deputies showing up at your house with guns and taking things in a manner that would be legal and not be considered robbery. When it becomes one thing or another is going to depend on your position on other things, there is a legal answer for when it becomes robbery/murder but also moral answers. I am for example a moral realist, so my answer to that would be different than someone who was a moral relativist.
- fsckboy 3mo ago>That's a strange way to phrase things. no, not really, you have to order it chronologically: charging interest was verboten and in law it was called usury. later, interest was deemed ok... but charging too much interest was to be sanctioned and usury was a handy word to use.
- ggm 3mo agoIn the Islamic finance model Muslims lending to Muslims, you don't charge interest so much as take a position in an investment with an eye to future value. At least that's how I understand it. There can still be a lein over assets, and a tail of payments and the final state would put both lender and debtor "where they expected to be" under the contract. Between Christians and Muslims, Christians and Jews, Jews and Muslims different rules may/may-have applied. Kings (of england, and other places) valued Jews precisely because of the fluidity of their lending to the crown at interest under catholic proscription regarding loans between christians, not the least because at long term consequences in access to jewish loans you could repudiate the debt and (or encourage your citizens to) conduct a pogrom.