Talk:School of Salamanca

message: I find this statement problematic, especially since its scope is unclear: "The School of Salamanca distinguished two realms of power, the natural or civil realm and the realm of the supernatural, which were not differentiated in the Middle Ages." While this may be true as a general rule, it also seems to stretch to Medival thought. Dante in The Divine Comedy expresses a similar need for the seperation of the natural and spiritual, at least until the return of Christ. --chemica 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "…which were often conflated in the Middle Ages through doctrines such as the Divine Right of Kings and the temporal powers of the pope"? - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is more accurate statement. Thank you. --chemica 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Statement 

message: The first paragraph of this passage is self-contradictory:
"The growth of the mendicant orders in the 13th century began a movement that, with ever more force, insisted on poverty and the brotherhood of man, deploring the accumulation of wealth in the Church. The mendicant orders considered the possession of goods and private property as, at least, morally objectionable. In contrast, the Dominicans in general and Thomas Aquinas in particular, defended private property as a morally neutral human institution."
The Dominicans (including Aquinas)were mendicants, thus contrasting mendicant teaching as a whole with Thomistic/Dominican teaching is implicitly contradictory. While the mendicants did take a vow of poverty it was not because poperty was viewed as evil, but becasue they wanted to remove the temptaions to greed and arrogance, as well as to generally free them from the concerns of maintaining property to more fully concentrate their efforts on their work. 69.138.210.176 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Private Property

message: It may well be a matter of taste and style, but I think the late Murray Rothbard could have found more modest ways to express his admiration for the insights of the Salamanca School than labelling them proto-Austrians, which is essentially anachronistic and a strange thing to do for an historian of economic thought. Any opinions? Robertsch55 13:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Austrian retroactive imperialism

message: So, there is this "Francisco de Vitoria was perhaps the first to develop a theory of ius gentium (the rights of peoples), and thus is an important figure in the transition to modernity." This is not even close. I in no way want to discount the legacy of Vitoria. His influence on Grotius was immense and any work on natural law, international law or Thomas Aquinas should reference him. He might be the "founder" of international law, as Grotius is considered its "father", but Vitoria did not develop jus gentium. the jus gentium or "law of nations" (not the rights of peoples) was Roman customary law, as opposed to jus civile, which was Roman civil law. In addition, modern international law is not just positive law. The number one source of international law are jus cogens norms. Even among the problematic (See Alvarez:IOs as law-makers) sources of international law listed in Article 38 of the ICJ statute only one of the sources is really positive law. The other two principle sources customary law and the general principles of law are generally not codified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.76.114 (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Statement