Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 173

Thread: Locke & Liberalism

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Soooo . . . The British didn't grab India?

    Who knew!
    Rattling the teacups.

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Soooo . . . The British didn't grab India?

    Who knew!
    That came later. An hundred and ten years after trade started, when civil war broke out between Indian states. Clive of India stepped into the power vacuum.
    Your knowledge of world history is poor. Your desire to snark and troll on the other hand is immense.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Happy New Year, Nick.
    Rattling the teacups.

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rubicon,WI
    Posts
    152

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Just have to ask after wasting too much time, is there a printed version?
    Tom from Rubicon

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Happy New Year, Nick.
    And to you and yours Beany.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    The American colonists certainly wanted to distance themselves from and were aggrieved by their relationship with their UK merchants. They were rapidly becoming more American and less British. I suspect that few of them ever aspired to return to the UK when they retired form business as Indian Nabobs did do.
    If they had found a society with which they could trade as they did in India there would have been no need of farm land. The Hudson Bay company traded without grabbing land. I think that you are using too broad a brush.
    I think you are using too narrow a brush. The Hudson Bay Company, for example, was once the largest landholder in the world, owning about 15% of North America. Not that an acre of Rupert's Land was worth much. And Canada is still trying to reconcile its treatment of the First Nations with any sort of morality.

    As to people returning to England, that did happen (John Locke, for example, moved back to Britain after his time in Carolina), but not as much as it did with the British in India, because the Brits had managed to seize the land in America, and construct a very British life in America. In fact, one of the causes of the American revolution was that the colonists were not being treated to the rights they expected as British subjects.

    Which takes us back to the issue of what rights they expected. George III seemed to feel free to act in the colonies in ways he couldn't get away with in the UK. In refusing to allow them democratic representation, he was refusing them their rights as British subjects. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll notice that the main complaints were that he was undermining the rule of law and workings of legislatures. The revolution was not about a separate identity from Britain, it was about not having the rights an Englishman expected to have.

    From the Declaration of Independence:

    ...For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
    In short, the colonists felt they were not being given the rights they expected as British people.

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    That came later. An hundred and ten years after trade started, when civil war broke out between Indian states. Clive of India stepped into the power vacuum.
    Your knowledge of world history is poor. Your desire to snark and troll on the other hand is immense.
    Oz didn't say when the British grabbed India, and as you confirm, they did grab it. His knowledge of history appears to be accurate. Had the Europeans not wished to grab India, some local potentate would have stepped into the vacuum, and probably governed better. Most of the famine deaths in India under the British happened under East India Company rule.

    But then, the people of India did not expect the rights of Englishmen until they had been educated by Englishmen. At the time John Company took over, they didn't expect a whole lot better from their government. The history of the subcontinent is long and sad.

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom from Rubicon View Post
    Just have to ask after wasting too much time, is there a printed version?
    Tom from Rubicon
    Not at present. But there are apps that allow it to be read on most devices.

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Traverse City MI and Charlotte NC
    Posts
    3,350

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The first half of the paper argues that markets are better than central planning, which, is there anyone alive who didn't know that?
    Well, me.

    Consider:

    There seems to be general agreement among liberals, including most here in the Bilge, that climate change is leading to large-scale disaster, unless we do such-and-such. And for one reason or another, we’re not doing such-and-such, and anyway we’re out of time. Our market forces and democratic industrialism have run us some considerable way to ruin. I’m sure some will say, “oh, it’s not that bad.” Before anyone says that, though, consider that that’s what Trump says.

    So, market forces are better than central planning? Better at what?

    Of course I know that the Central-Planning bigwigs have screwed things up as well, having planned for some witless goals. But if any technique will at least soften the coming disaster, does anyone think that the Market, lusting, as it does, after short-term profits, will work better than central planning?
    ‘Rubbish!’ he always said. ‘It’s just a story about rabbits.’”

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaseLockedLoop View Post
    Well, me.

    Consider:

    There seems to be general agreement among liberals, including most here in the Bilge, that climate change is leading to large-scale disaster, unless we do such-and-such. And for one reason or another, we’re not doing such-and-such, and anyway we’re out of time. Our market forces and democratic industrialism have run us some considerable way to ruin. I’m sure some will say, “oh, it’s not that bad.” Before anyone says that, though, consider that that’s what Trump says.

    So, market forces are better than central planning? Better at what?

    Of course I know that the Central-Planning bigwigs have screwed things up as well, having planned for some witless goals. But if any technique will at least soften the coming disaster, does anyone think that the Market, lusting, as it does, after short-term profits, will work better than central planning?
    Well, one method that has been proposed is cap and trade. It worked pretty well on acid rain, and George H.W. Bush signed it into law, it was considered a market solution to the problem of certain kinds of pollution. When it was proposed for dealing with CO2 emissions, Republicans decided that it was no longer a market solution, but was in fact socialism.

    Another way of dealing with climate change is simple regulation of emissions. You don't have to centrally plan the economy, all you have to do is tell companies that they can no longer externalize certain costs by having unregulated emissions. That's worked remarkably well for automotive emissions, and no one would say the government centrally plans the automotive industry.

    And central planning was a disaster for the ecology of Soviet bloc countries. Pollution was much worse in those centrally planned economies than in capitalist countries with strong states that could regulate industry.

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    7,558

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Well, if you're confused by it, consider the reason famine zones almost always export food.

    The cause of the famine, say a drought, does not just kill off subsistence crops. It also kills off cash crops. As a result, farmers not only lose the crops they intended to eat, they also lose the crops they intended to sell, so they don't have anything to eat, but they also don't have anything to buy food with. The latent demand -- their need for food -- certainly exists, but because the famine has impoverished the farmers, there is no effective demand, that is, they cannot buy food at market rates. Outside the famine zine, people have their subsistence crops, but they also have their cash crops. People outside the famine zone can afford any food produced in the famine zone, but people inside the famine zone are starving and poor, and cannot afford the food.

    In that case, there is a clear market failure and reason for the government to intervene.

    There's a pretty clear explanation of it here: https://www.economicshelp.org/concep...ective-demand/

    It may have been controversial in the early 19th century, when Malthus and Ricardo were discussing it, but since the great Depression, it's been pretty widely accepted.
    From the link.
    Demand is said to be latent if consumers would like to be able to purchase the good. For example, usually, a consumer would buy three loaves of bread per week. But, if he has an unexpected drop in income, he may not be able to afford the loaves. When his income returns to normal, his latent demand will return to effective demand.
    The problem is that this example as well as yours fails to distinguish with having the want and making the choice to not buy and having the want and lacking the ability to buy.

    Students who have sufficient income or wealthy parents can effectively demand university education. Students with no parental backing may not have the effective demand to study at university.
    And again. Many can afford college, but they are more than willing to attempt to have others pay. Which is not distinguished from the previous examples.

    But in any case there is no simple path to the claim you made of the rich getting what they want and the poor getting what is left.
    Life is complex.

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    340

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Dear Mr. Peerie -

    Far be it from me to suggest that the Brit colonists of the Lockean era
    were any less rapacious than the Brit gummint.

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    From the link.

    The problem is that this example as well as yours fails to distinguish with having the want and making the choice to not buy and having the want and lacking the ability to buy.


    And again. Many can afford college, but they are more than willing to attempt to have others pay. Which is not distinguished from the previous examples.

    But in any case there is no simple path to the claim you made of the rich getting what they want and the poor getting what is left.
    Try reading the link again, especially the parts you quoted, you don't seem to have understood what it said. It makes precisely the distinction you claim it doesn't.

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I think you are using too narrow a brush. The Hudson Bay Company, for example, was once the largest landholder in the world, owning about 15% of North America. Not that an acre of Rupert's Land was worth much. And Canada is still trying to reconcile its treatment of the First Nations with any sort of morality.

    As to people returning to England, that did happen (John Locke, for example, moved back to Britain after his time in Carolina), but not as much as it did with the British in India, because the Brits had managed to seize the land in America, and construct a very British life in America. In fact, one of the causes of the American revolution was that the colonists were not being treated to the rights they expected as British subjects.

    Which takes us back to the issue of what rights they expected. George III seemed to feel free to act in the colonies in ways he couldn't get away with in the UK. In refusing to allow them democratic representation, he was refusing them their rights as British subjects. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll notice that the main complaints were that he was undermining the rule of law and workings of legislatures. The revolution was not about a separate identity from Britain, it was about not having the rights an Englishman expected to have.

    From the Declaration of Independence:



    In short, the colonists felt they were not being given the rights they expected as British people.
    I agree parliament screwed up. George wanted to treat the Americas better, but Parliament pushed the harder line which resulted in the Revolution.
    in the words of Professor Peter Thomas, George's "hopes were centred on a political solution, and he always bowed to his cabinet's opinions even when sceptical of their success. The detailed evidence of the years from 1763 to 1775 tends to exonerate George III from any real responsibility for the American Revolution."[52] Though the Americans characterised George as a tyrant, in these years he acted as a constitutional monarch supporting the initiatives of his ministers.[53]
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Oz didn't say when the British grabbed India, and as you confirm, they did grab it. His knowledge of history appears to be accurate. Had the Europeans not wished to grab India, some local potentate would have stepped into the vacuum, and probably governed better. Most of the famine deaths in India under the British happened under East India Company rule.

    But then, the people of India did not expect the rights of Englishmen until they had been educated by Englishmen. At the time John Company took over, they didn't expect a whole lot better from their government. The history of the subcontinent is long and sad.
    Oz was being a troll.

    Had the Europeans not wished to grab India
    The Company wanted to maintain their trade, taking over the running of that part of India bought stability rather than the chaos of war which allowed trade to continue. I am not so sure about your statement on Famine. Famines were regular occurrences in India
    The Bihar famine of 1873–1874 (also the Bengal famine of 1873–1874) was a famine in British India that followed a drought in the province of Bihar, the neighboring provinces of Bengal, the North-Western Provinces and Oudh. It affected an area of 140,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi) and a population of 21.5 million.[1] The relief effort—organized by Sir Richard Temple, the newly appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal—was one of the success stories of the famine relief in British India; there was little or no mortality during the famine.[2]
    however
    Since the expenditure associated with the relief effort was considered excessive, Sir Richard Temple was criticized by British officials. Taking the criticism to heart, he revised the official famine relief philosophy, which thereafter became concerned with thrift and efficiency.[2] The relief efforts in the subsequent Great Famine of 1876–78 in Bombay and South India were therefore very modest, which led to excessive mortality.[2]
    Typical bureaucratic parsimony. Could some local potentate have organised or afforded the import of grain from Burma?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by sandtown View Post
    Dear Mr. Peerie -

    Far be it from me to suggest that the Brit colonists of the Lockean era
    were any less rapacious than the Brit gummint.
    It is your history, your ancestors, your cultural legacy. Do you own it, or are you shifting blame on to the UK?

    The colonials exploiting the new lands were trading with merchants not with gummint, their policies entirely their own and were not set by Parliament in London but were moderated and reined in by the colonial administration put in place by said gummint.
    The dispossession of the Indians

    The process of removing the Indians from their ancestral lands led to bitter disputes. The British tried to end one such problem by setting up the Proclamation of 1763 line along the Appalachian divide, allowing whites to take over what lay to the east but attempting to reserve what lay to the west as Indian territory. After their independence from Britain, the Americans continued to adopt this ideal of a two-nation state, but in practice the notion soon collapsed as they pushed the Indian line westward past the Appalachians to the Mississippi River and into the Missouri River valley and other western lands.
    <snip>
    Although not intended to alter western boundaries, the proclamation was nevertheless offensive to the colonies as undue interference in their affairs. Treaties following Pontiac’s War drew a line of settlement more acceptable to colonial settlers (see Fort Stanwix, Treaties of), but the continued westward movement of pioneers and the settlers’ disregard of the proclamation’s provisions evoked decades of continued Indian warfare throughout the area. The addition of the balance of territory north of the Ohio River to Quebec in 1774 further exacerbated colonial conflict with Britain.
    The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 01-01-2019 at 06:02 AM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Spin it, baby!
    Rattling the teacups.

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Spin it, baby!
    Fake News!!!

    from the Encyclopaedia Britannica
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  19. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Fake News!!!

    from the Encyclopaedia Britannica
    Unbiased source?
    Rattling the teacups.

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Unbiased source?
    Will some one call round and take the shovel away from Oz?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  21. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    It really is quite comical, Nick.

    The English King came over here and stole as much as he could from the Indians, fought several wars against various other European powers over who was entitled to steal what, and who could keep what they had stolen.

    Then we kicked his sorry carcass to the curb, and according to you that means George and all his subjects in perpetuity have been absolved of all sin.

    COMICAL!
    Rattling the teacups.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Oz, yu are making ourself look as fact free as our RWWs.
    In short.
    U R Silly.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Oz was being a troll.

    The Company wanted to maintain their trade, taking over the running of that part of India bought stability rather than the chaos of war which allowed trade to continue. I am not so sure about your statement on Famine. Famines were regular occurrences in India

    however

    Typical bureaucratic parsimony. Could some local potentate have organised or afforded the import of grain from Burma?
    Take a look at the actual number of people who died in the famines. East India Company rule was much worse for India than British Empire rule. The issue was whether they would export food rather than distribute it to people who couldn't afford it. Governments are typically better at dealing with the problem of effective demand than private company rule proved able to do.

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    It is your history, your ancestors, your cultural legacy. Do you own it, or are you shifting blame on to the UK?

    The colonials exploiting the new lands were trading with merchants not with gummint, their policies entirely their own and were not set by Parliament in London but were moderated and reined in by the colonial administration put in place by said gummint.
    Well, that's easy to understand. The British government wanted to restrict settlement to the area they could control.

    But they did want to control all the land east of the Appalachians. The notion that the British did not grab land in the new world is historically incorrect. They grabbed as much as they thought they could control, and it turned out to be more than they could control.

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I agree parliament screwed up. George wanted to treat the Americas better, but Parliament pushed the harder line which resulted in the Revolution.
    When you allow things to be done in your name, people blame you. Does this surprise you?

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    When you allow things to be done in your name, people blame you. Does this surprise you?
    Of course not. It is the lazy way. Finding out the truth and ascribing responsibility correctly takes work and makes some peoples brains hurt.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Well, that's easy to understand. The British government wanted to restrict settlement to the area they could control.

    But they did want to control all the land east of the Appalachians. The notion that the British did not grab land in the new world is historically incorrect. They grabbed as much as they thought they could control, and it turned out to be more than they could control.
    That is not how I read the piece that I quoted.
    he process of removing the Indians from their ancestral lands led to bitter disputes. The British tried to end one such problem
    Yours is a huge oversimplification of what was happening. I read that as wanting peace to get on with farming and trade by pragmatically achieving the best compromise based on what the colonial settlers had already done, whereas the people of the protoAmerican nation just wanted to steal any land that they could.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  28. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    That is not how I read the piece that I quoted.
    Yours is a huge oversimplification of what was happening. I read that as wanting peace to get on with farming and trade by pragmatically achieving the best compromise based on what the colonial settlers had already done, whereas the people of the protoAmerican nation just wanted to steal any land that they could.
    First of all, the 'protoAmerican' people you speak of were British subjects. You may wish they weren't, but they were. Second, the British government was beginning to realized that they may have grabbed more than they could control. To the extent that they wanted to limit further land seizures by British subjects, it was so that they could control what they had successfully grabbed.

    Can it really be the case that you are so ashamed of the British Empire that you wish to disown it and all its works?

  29. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    First of all, the 'protoAmerican' people you speak of were British subjects. You may wish they weren't, but they were. Second, the British government was beginning to realized that they may have grabbed more than they could control. To the extent that they wanted to limit further land seizures by British subjects, it was so that they could control what they had successfully grabbed.

    Can it really be the case that you are so ashamed of the British Empire that you wish to disown it and all its works?
    No skin off my nose either way, except that I do not like historical spin and inaccuracy.
    The colonists might have been British subjects, but they resented that fact. They were clearly protoAmericans who did not want to follow the directives of the colonial administrators.
    Although not intended to alter western boundaries, the proclamation was nevertheless offensive to the colonies as undue interference in their affairs. Treaties following Pontiac’s War drew a line of settlement more acceptable to colonial settlers (see Fort Stanwix, Treaties of), but the continued westward movement of pioneers and the settlers’ disregard of the proclamation’s provisions evoked decades of continued Indian warfare throughout the area. The addition of the balance of territory north of the Ohio River to Quebec in 1774 further exacerbated colonial conflict with Britain.
    The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
    The bottom line is that the land grabs were in-spite of the British administration after they tried to keep the peace with the Native Tribes.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  30. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Of course not. It is the lazy way. Finding out the truth and ascribing responsibility correctly takes work and makes some peoples brains hurt.
    My brain feels fine, thank you. On the other hand, 'ascribing responsibility correctly' seems to make you very uncomfortable. You wish to argue that the British subjects who seized land from the Indians, for the most part under the protection of British troops, were not acting as British people. That's nonsense. Nor did the British seizure of land in North America stop when they lost the 13 colonies. They did become wiser in the administration of their Canadian lands, but they did not stop grabbing land in the new world.

    Do you wish to argue that, when George Washington fought against the French and Indians in the Seven Years War, he was not acting on behalf of the British Crown? That the goal of the war against the alliance of French and Indians was not grabbing more land?

    The British practice of dumping their undesirables in their American colonies was bound to lead to people wanting more land, yet they never stopped doing it until after the Revolutionary War, and it was only after this that they began wiping out the native peoples of Australia. The British practice of seizing land and if possible replacing the original inhabitants did not stop with the loss of their American colonies, they just started doing it in different places.

    This is where tribalism and liberalism are in conflict. Human rights only get applied to those you regard as fully human. Americans and Australians have to deal with the racism that enabled their ancestors to steal entire continents. Apparently, some Brits think they can disown the works of the British Empire. But the same moral dilemma's that we wild colonial boys face are part of the empire's legacy to the British people of today. Try as you may, history is difficult to change.

  31. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    The bottom line is that the land grabs were in-spite of the British administration after they had bitten off more than they could chew.
    Fixed that, Nick.

    Land grabs subsequent to your loss of control does not excuse land grabs perpetrated before that.
    Rattling the teacups.

  32. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    My brain feels fine, thank you. On the other hand, 'ascribing responsibility correctly' seems to make you very uncomfortable. You wish to argue that the British subjects who seized land from the Indians, for the most part under the protection of British troops, were not acting as British people. That's nonsense. Nor did the British seizure of land in North America stop when they lost the 13 colonies. They did become wiser in the administration of their Canadian lands, but they did not stop grabbing land in the new world.

    Do you wish to argue that, when George Washington fought against the French and Indians in the Seven Years War, he was not acting on behalf of the British Crown? That the goal of the war against the alliance of French and Indians was not grabbing more land?

    The British practice of dumping their undesirables in their American colonies was bound to lead to people wanting more land, yet they never stopped doing it until after the Revolutionary War, and it was only after this that they began wiping out the native peoples of Australia. The British practice of seizing land and if possible replacing the original inhabitants did not stop with the loss of their American colonies, they just started doing it in different places.

    This is where tribalism and liberalism are in conflict. Human rights only get applied to those you regard as fully human. Americans and Australians have to deal with the racism that enabled their ancestors to steal entire continents. Apparently, some Brits think they can disown the works of the British Empire. But the same moral dilemma's that we wild colonial boys face are part of the empire's legacy to the British people of today. Try as you may, history is difficult to change.
    Preach it, Brother!

    Sing your song!

    If we don't deal with it, it will rot our souls.
    Rattling the teacups.

  33. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    My brain feels fine, thank you. On the other hand, 'ascribing responsibility correctly' seems to make you very uncomfortable. You wish to argue that the British subjects who seized land from the Indians, for the most part under the protection of British troops, were not acting as British people. That's nonsense. Nor did the British seizure of land in North America stop when they lost the 13 colonies. They did become wiser in the administration of their Canadian lands, but they did not stop grabbing land in the new world.

    Do you wish to argue that, when George Washington fought against the French and Indians in the Seven Years War, he was not acting on behalf of the British Crown? That the goal of the war against the alliance of French and Indians was not grabbing more land?

    The British practice of dumping their undesirables in their American colonies was bound to lead to people wanting more land, yet they never stopped doing it until after the Revolutionary War, and it was only after this that they began wiping out the native peoples of Australia. The British practice of seizing land and if possible replacing the original inhabitants did not stop with the loss of their American colonies, they just started doing it in different places.

    This is where tribalism and liberalism are in conflict. Human rights only get applied to those you regard as fully human. Americans and Australians have to deal with the racism that enabled their ancestors to steal entire continents. Apparently, some Brits think they can disown the works of the British Empire. But the same moral dilemma's that we wild colonial boys face are part of the empire's legacy to the British people of today. Try as you may, history is difficult to change.
    Woa there. The bonded servants and transported criminals were not able to own or occupy land until they had served their time. Until then they were at their masters bidding.
    Wiping out the Australian Abbos? Just when did they start deliberate genocide?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Woa there. The bonded servants and transported criminals were not able to own or occupy land until they had served their time. Until then they were at their masters bidding.
    Wiping out the Australian Abbos? Just when did they start deliberate genocide?
    So, if their master moved west, they had no option but to go with them. And yes, once they served their time, they were able to go where they wished. In the meantime, transporting them to America increased population pressures.

    Nice qualifier, 'deliberate.' As soon as the penal colonies were established, Brits started seizing land. Like the Native Americans, most of the Australian native people who died did so because of disease. Deliberate or not, the genocide started as soon as Europeans arrived with new diseases.

    In any case, the genocide remark is just deflection, since the issue you started by arguing is the seizure of land. I think your effort to change the subject is quite understandable, given the weakness of your position.

  35. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,118

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    So tell me about it if you care. (or dare)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Woa there. The bonded servants and transported criminals were not able to own or occupy land until they had served their time. Until then they were at their masters bidding.
    Wiping out the Australian Abbos? Just when did they start deliberate genocide?
    Xanthorrea

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •