Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 105 of 173

Thread: Locke & Liberalism

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Happy New Year, Nick!

    Rattling the teacups.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    So tell me about it if you care. (or dare)
    I did look in Wikipedia. There were killings in the early days, punitive killings of small numbers for some real or mistaken crime, but Genocide as a policy? No.

    This
    The new climate opposed open-air murder, and London started putting pressure on Australia to rein things in a bit. In response, the Australian government actually charged a handful of whites with murder in the 1838 Stockman Case, which the Crown instigated after a dozen stock ranchers staged an unprovoked attack on a nearby camp of Aborigines. This marked the first time the state had formally charged whites for killing natives, and the whole colony watched to see how it would turn out.
    When the court found the men guilty – and worse, sentenced some to hang – the settler population across Australia unfurled in outrage. Many protested and sent letters repudiating the decision, but they didn’t save the condemned men.
    indicates that any killing of Aboriginals was to be stopped. https://allthatsinteresting.com/australia-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.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    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.
    I expected better of you.
    genocide
    /ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd/
    noun
    noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
    the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
    It was you that bought up
    that they began wiping out the native peoples of Australia.
    fer crissakes.
    I am becoming bored with going round and round in circles.
    You are adamant that because at the time they were British subjects it was the British governments fault.
    I am arguing that they were the same people with the same attitudes before and after the war of Independence, so they share in the responsibility to a greater or lesser degree.
    And never the twain shall meet.
    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.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I expected better of you.

    It was you that bought up fer crissakes.
    I am becoming bored with going round and round in circles.
    You are adamant that because at the time they were British subjects it was the British governments fault.
    I am arguing that they were the same people with the same attitudes before and after the war of Independence, so they share in the responsibility to a greater or lesser degree.
    And never the twain shall meet.
    I see you're ready to compromise.
    Rattling the teacups.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    I see you're ready to compromise.
    I never claimed that anything was black and white, we are discussing peoples behaviours here.
    However it is disingenuous to slope shoulders onto the government in London especially when you think how long it took to send a dispatch across the Atlantic, consider it, form policy, draft a response and send it back. Most of what happened was decided in the colonies by the colonials, who chafed at restrictions on their activities imposed from London.

    John's comment about pressure on land even pales to insignificance when you consider the population density in the UK countryside, They were not that crowded in the colonial settlements.
    To put those numbers in some perspective, the densest areas in 1775 had slightly over 40 inhabitants per square mile (although density would have been higher in cities),
    compared with 94 per sq mile in England and Wales, of which 600,000 lived in London.
    So your forefathers really did not need much more land.
    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. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I expected better of you.

    It was you that bought up fer crissakes.
    I am becoming bored with going round and round in circles.
    You are adamant that because at the time they were British subjects it was the British governments fault.
    I am arguing that they were the same people with the same attitudes before and after the war of Independence, so they share in the responsibility to a greater or lesser degree.
    And never the twain shall meet.
    If you're tired on going around in circles, why do you keep going around in circles? I've never argued that Americans are without guilt, I've merely argued that the Brits aren't either. Certainly the colonists were the same sort of people before and after independence, many American still look to Britain for the roots of American culture. I have never argued otherwise.

    I understand your desire to deflect the conversation to talk about genocide. Your original position, that the Brits weren't responsible for their seizure of North American land, was certainly not supportable.

    So why not talk about something else? The roots of liberalism and the continuing effects of the mindset liberalism has given us can take us to many different areas of discussion, such as why gay marriage is more acceptable to the modern mind than plural marriage. The threats to liberalism from tribalism, dominionism, fascism, and other isms, as well as the rise of illiberal 'democracy,' are other threads we could pursue.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,118

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    For emphasis. What a sanctimonious load of CARP you POM! Now get back into your self effacing colonial bunker. Sanctioned killings and those organised by police continued into the 1930s. Policy was to turn a blind eye. There are copious reports. Wiki is a fatuous source as is your self justificatory precis. My extended family has stories. You are quite the piece of your colonial construction seeking the usual peer approval. Now as your term for us it is as nasty as the N term in the US might I posit that you don't give a rotund rat's rectum. Well you are on notice for such but I doubt that the colonials, proto colonials and assumed post colonials don't give a rats. You are on notice mugilah. UOTE=Peerie Maa;5771678]I did look in Wikipedia. There were killings in the early days, punitive killings of small numbers for some real or mistaken crime, but Genocide as a policy? No.

    This indicates that any killing of Aboriginals was to be stopped. https://allthatsinteresting.com/australia-genocide[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by purri; 01-02-2019 at 05:25 AM.
    Xanthorrea

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    I think we've beaten that one to death. Here's another direction to take the discussion:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/o...nion&smtyp=cur
    As the Trump presidency falls under siege on multiple fronts, it has become increasingly clear that the so-called values voters will be among the last to leave the citadel. A lot of attention has been paid to the supposed paradox of evangelicals backing such an imperfect man, but the real problem is that our idea of Christian nationalism hasn’t caught up with the reality. We still buy the line that the hard core of the Christian right is just an interest group working to protect its values. But what we don’t get is that Mr. Trump’s supposedly anti-Christian attributes and anti-democratic attributes are a vital part of his attraction.





    Today’s Christian nationalists talk a good game about respecting the Constitution and America’s founders, but at bottom they sound as if they prefer autocrats to democrats. In fact, what they really want is a king. “It is God that raises up a king,” according to Paula White, a prosperity gospel preacher who has advised Mr. Trump.
    Ralph Drollinger, who has led weekly Bible study groups in the White House attended by Vice President Mike Pence and many other cabinet members, likes the word “king” so much that he frequently turns it into a verb. “Get ready to king in our future lives,” he tells his followers. “Christian believers will — soon, I hope — become the consummate, perfect governing authorities!”
    The great thing about kings like Cyrus, as far as today’s Christian nationalists are concerned, is that they don’t have to follow rules. They are the law. This makes them ideal leaders in paranoid times.

    It appears there are many who prefer the idea of a leader who serves God to one who serves the people. The basic precepts of liberalism are anathema to a certain sector of the population.

  9. #79
    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 we've beaten that one to death. Here's another direction to take the discussion:


    It appears there are many who prefer the idea of a leader who serves God to one who serves the people. The basic precepts of liberalism are anathema to a certain sector of the population.
    Ahh, but which god? The Catholic god. The English Anglican god, The Nigerian Anglican god, the god of the Westborough Baptists?
    Experiments in Eugenics proves that you cannot breed out stupidity. So you need honest honourable politicians instead.
    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.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,118

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    You are quite the self justificatory colonialist aggressor. Now get an education gubbah or are you mired with the usual with the Pommy usual. Read my last amended post eh?,
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I expected better of you.

    It was you that bought up fer crissakes.
    I am becoming bored with going round and round in circles.
    You are adamant that because at the time they were British subjects it was the British governments fault.
    I am arguing that they were the same people with the same attitudes before and after the war of Independence, so they share in the responsibility to a greater or lesser degree.
    And never the twain shall meet.
    Xanthorrea

  11. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    You are quite the self justificatory colonialist aggressor. Now get an education gubbah or are you mired with the usual with the Pommy usual. Read my last amended post eh?,
    If you want to play the blame game, lay the blame in the correct place.
    Before Australia was a nation, it was a collection of British colonies. Each colony was under the rule of a governor or lieutenant governor, who acted on behalf of the British Parliament. By 1860 all the colonies, apart from Western Australia, had been granted partial self-government (Western Australia became self-governing in 1890).

    Each had its own written constitution, parliament and laws, although the British Parliament retained the power to make laws for the colonies and could over-rule laws passed by the colonial parliaments. Through the 1800s people in each colony were granted the right to elect their own parliaments. However, voting eligibility was often restricted to males with a certain amount of wealth and land.
    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.

  12. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    17,841

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    There's liberal and anti-liberal at all times and in all places.

    Germany, Italy, and Spain were all liberal republics before they went fascist. Vichy France.

    Currently, many republics are on the brink.

    Liberalism is worth fighting for.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  13. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    There's liberal and anti-liberal at all times and in all places.

    Germany, Italy, and Spain were all liberal republics before they went fascist. Vichy France.

    Currently, many republics are on the brink.

    Liberalism is worth fighting for.
    Yes. 591,917 US combat soldiers have given their all for Liberalism since 1775.

    And yes, that's the number of those killed in combat, and does not include Confederate dead.

    Our 'Republican' President urinates on the graves of ALL of them every, single day.
    Last edited by oznabrag; 01-02-2019 at 01:58 PM. Reason: clarification of numbers.
    Rattling the teacups.

  14. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    17,841

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    John's book says why.


    The menu:

    1. Pacifist
    2. fight
    3. coward
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  15. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    There's liberal and anti-liberal at all times and in all places.

    Germany, Italy, and Spain were all liberal republics before they went fascist. Vichy France.

    Currently, many republics are on the brink.

    Liberalism is worth fighting for.
    For decades, American leaders assumed the only real challenge to liberal democracy was Communism. Then, Communism fell, and a lot of people assumed that meant that liberal democracy was the only system people would consider legitimate. Francis Fukuyama even wrote a book called The End of History and the Last Man. The book claimed that history, in the sense of Hegel's dialectical idealism, ended because liberalism was the only legitimate ideology left, since Communism was delegitimized.

    As I pointed out in the book, Hegel thought history ended on a Tuesday afternoon, Oct. 14, 1806, with the liberal forces represented by Napoleon defeating the traditional Prussian monarchy as Jena.

    Yet now, with the fall of Communism, we see the rise of the traditional authoritarian state, with its legitimacy coming from God instead of the people. If liberalism falls, perhaps history will end again with the restoration of traditional government by force, faith, and custom.

  16. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,118

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    There are copious historical resources to refute your generic claim of a "benign colonial governance" and correspondence between COLSECS and London as I alluded to. Now tell me about the activities of the Australian Agricultural Company and that of the Vestey family. I suggest that you do appropriate research but I doubt it. Now back to your querencia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    If you want to play the blame game, lay the blame in the correct place.
    Last edited by purri; 01-03-2019 at 01:18 AM.
    Xanthorrea

  17. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    340

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Peerie shows that national "exceptionalism" is not only found in USAeans.

    Actually, that sort of rabid nationalism likely began in France - see, "chauvinism"

    but the Brits caught on quickly

  18. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Well, I tried to stem the thread drift.

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by sandtown View Post
    Peerie shows that national "exceptionalism" is not only found in USAeans.

    Actually, that sort of rabid nationalism likely began in France - see, "chauvinism"

    but the Brits caught on quickly
    What crap.


    When you are discussing history you must put your mind in the times that you are discussing.
    It took 3 to 4 weeks to carry letters from America to London.

    It took 250 days to sail to Australia.

    Under those circumstances, once the colonies were set up, London had little influence on the day to day activities of the colonists.
    You need to be careful about the language that you use.

    John posting
    they began wiping out the native peoples of Australia
    was a sloppy use of language. A little research indicates that there were killings of “family sized” numbers, but the largest number “wiped out” occurred due to the Aboriginal lack of immunity to illnesses like the common cold bought to Australia by the English and French explorers before the First Fleet set off. Knowing the state of medicine at the time you cannot suggest that was deliberate policy.



    So, where does that leave the debate?

    Someone who I suggest can't do the history resorting to shooting the messenger with gratuitous insult.
    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.

  20. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    17,841

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    . . . Francis Fukuyama . . . claimed that history, in the sense of Hegel's dialectical idealism, ended because liberalism was the only legitimate ideology left, since Communism was delegitimized . . . Hegel thought history ended on a Tuesday afternoon, Oct. 14, 1806, with the liberal forces represented by Napoleon defeating the traditional Prussian monarchy as Jena.
    "Legitimate" is a judgment made on a fairly abstract plane. Within those confines, it is what it is, worth what it's worth. Whether people adopt it in their hearts and minds is another story. How and at what point is an interesting inquiry, but the main story is the colossal change in civilization which the enlightenment represents. Not just political economy but culture and morals, meaning, ultimately, psychology. Revolutionary, productive of reaction. Far from "over".

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Yet now, with the fall of Communism, we see the rise of the traditional authoritarian state, with its legitimacy coming from God instead of the people. If liberalism falls, perhaps history will end again with the restoration of traditional government by force, faith, and custom.
    Reaction can win. Dark ages. Worth fighting against.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  21. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    There are copious historical resources to refute your generic claim of a "benign colonial governance" and correspondence between COLSECS and London as I alluded to. Now tell me about the activities of the Australian Agricultural Company and that of the Vestey family. I suggest that you do appropriate research but I doubt it. Now back to your querencia.
    Quote me where I used
    "benign colonial governance"
    , that attitude went out with "The white man's burden" in Africa.
    Your passion is running away with your reason.
    As to the AACo or Vesteys, I fail to see their relevance to the discussion of wiping out anybody, Cattle ranchers, mining, and a failed abattoir in 1920?
    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.

  22. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    340

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Right JohnW - sorry for my part in the thread drift . .

    I would argue that Locke's greatest contribution was the notion that natural rights were inalienable,
    that they could not be constrained without lots of due process, and that no one could sell, barter or give away
    anyone's rights - including their own.

    And yes, he put too much emphasis on property - all other rights become thin and insubstantial in comparison.
    And he never dealt with the issue of what happens when various rights conflict with each other.

  23. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by sandtown View Post
    Right JohnW - sorry for my part in the thread drift . .

    I would argue that Locke's greatest contribution was the notion that natural rights were inalienable,
    that they could not be constrained without lots of due process, and that no one could sell, barter or give away
    anyone's rights - including their own.

    And yes, he put too much emphasis on property - all other rights become thin and insubstantial in comparison.
    And he never dealt with the issue of what happens when various rights conflict with each other.
    Well, I think you made an interesting point about the extent to which his view of how property was created, and you may be right that it helped justify the exploitation of some of the people they encountered in their explorations. On the other hand, his concept of inalienable rights brought home the moral issue of how we treat other human beings. Slavery was an institution probably as old as warfare, but it became morally abhorrent because our understanding of what a human being is changed. When Europeans arrived in the new world and began conquering, exploiting, and displacing native peoples, at first it didn't seem like a moral dilemma at all. Now what happened seems so abhorrent that we have an Englishman arguing that the actions of British subjects in British colonies was not the fault of the British. The ideas of liberalism are continuing to change how we view being human.

    Sometimes this has perverse effects. I knew a lot of the stately homes of England were built with wealth made in the sugar plantations, but I hadn't realized until recently that when slavery was finally abolished in 1833, the money paid to compensate slave owners for taking their property financed a building boom in the stately homes business.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-8518002.html

    Of course, money from the sugar plantations had been building stately homes in England for about 150 years before that. Barbados was far more profitable than any of the North American colonies, and was not considered a healthy place for Europeans to live. No wonder the rich planters chose to return to England to enjoy their wealth.

    But the issue of slavery brings up another interesting point. Around 1830, quite a few Southern gentlemen thought slavery would soon go the way of the dodo. Slavery did not seem to be very profitable.

    Then the mechanized cotton mills in England started buying more cotton as they became more efficient, and slavery became very profitable. The Southern abolitionists rethought the value of slavery or became very unpopular. The ideas of liberalism were pretty widespread at the time, but as Sinclair Lewis said, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.

    The Cornerstone Speech shows how the slave power got around peoples' consciences. They dehumanized the people kept as slaves so that they could justify not treating them as having human rights. The fact that they felt a need to do so is remarkable in itself. I know of no objections the people of Athens had to the slave labor that worked the silver mines that contributed so much to the city's wealth during its golden age. I don't believe Plato ever argued that slavery was a bad thing.

    As to Locke's views being dominated by property, that had a strange outcome, didn't it? He confronted the issue of property directly, by claiming that we are all born owning ourselves, and cannot 'alienate' -- that is, sell -- that ownership of ourselves. The result was to stop us treating people as property, precisely because so much of Locke's theory was about property.

  24. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-8518002.html
    The IoS revealed last week that when slave ownership was abolished by Britain in 1833 the government paid out a total of £20m – the equivalent of £16.5bn today– to compensate thousands of wealthy families for their loss of "property".
    Contrasted with the French in Haiti
    In 1825 France sent an armada to Haiti and threatened to blockade the country, preventing trade unless Boyer agreed to pay France 150,000,000 francs to reimburse it for losses of "property" — mostly its slaves.[56] In exchange, France would recognize Haiti as an independent nation, which it had thus far refused to do.[57] Boyer agreed without making the decision public beforehand, a move which met with widespread outrage in Haiti.[57] The amount was reduced to 90,000,000 francs in 1838, equivalent to USD $19 billion in 2015.[58] Haiti was saddled with this debt until 1947,[39] and forced to forgo spending on humanitarian programs such as sanitation.[59] In 1838, an estimated 30% of the country's yearly budget went to debt,[60] and in 1900, the amount had risen to 80%.[59][61] Haiti took out loans from Germany, the U.S., and France itself to come up with this money, further increasing its debt burden[59] and those countries' centrality in the Haitian economy.[62]
    As to Athens and Plato, morality is always evolving, can we criticize them for being people of their time when they knew no better?
    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.

  25. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,347

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    [QUOTE=Peerie Maa;5773842 morality is always evolving, can we criticize them for being people of their time when they knew no better?[/QUOTE]

    Holy rippin' ratfreakers, Batman!

    I guess your whole outlook on the thing has evolved since this thread was started!

    ROFLMAO!!!
    Rattling the teacups.

  26. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Holy rippin' ratfreakers, Batman!

    I guess your whole outlook on the thing has evolved since this thread was started!

    ROFLMAO!!!
    Nope. Now get back in that hole you were digging yourself.
    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. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-8518002.html

    Contrasted with the French in Haiti

    As to Athens and Plato, morality is always evolving, can we criticize them for being people of their time when they knew no better?
    My point exactly. You keep insisting that Britain was not responsible for acts that were considered moral when they were committed. Why bother? What interests me is how our morals changed, and the extent to which they changed because of a revolution in the way we thought about humanity.

  28. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,805

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    My point exactly. You keep insisting that Britain was not responsible for acts that were considered moral when they were committed. Why bother? What interests me is how our morals changed, and the extent to which they changed because of a revolution in the way we thought about humanity.
    One hell of a lot of changes through time and cultures. Although the enlightenment was a biggy, and Locke was vital to the formation of the US constitution (but not that important to half of the US population if threads on here are anything to go by) there will have been other key moments as well.

    P.S. Not just Britain. Greek culture, Roman culture, Viking culture, post independence US culture. All products of their place and time.
    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.

  29. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    One hell of a lot of changes through time and cultures. Although the enlightenment was a biggy, and Locke was vital to the formation of the US constitution (but not that important to half of the US population if threads on here are anything to go by) there will have been other key moments as well.

    P.S. Not just Britain. Greek culture, Roman culture, Viking culture, post independence US culture. All products of their place and time.
    As are we.

    One reason for writing The Outlaw John Locke is that so few people seem to study liberalism, or understand what a major break from tradition it was and remains. We have people acting on ideas that they can't really articulate, which muddies the conversation. The fact that so many people seem to want a traditional society based on religion and ethnic identity makes me think that perhaps we ought to make what we're talking about more clear.

  30. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    17,841

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Not a stretch to call it the fulcrum of history to date. Liberalism is only the political economic aspect. The other is science. Unalienably linked, let us not forget.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  31. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Not a stretch to call it the fulcrum of history to date. Liberalism is only the political economic aspect. The other is science. Unalienably linked, let us not forget.
    Nor is it a coincidence that those who have a problem with liberalism often have a problem with science. The question is, are we to be ruled by reason, or by myth?

  32. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    17,841

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Nor is it a coincidence that those who have a problem with liberalism often have a problem with science. The question is, are we to be ruled by reason, or by myth?
    Yeah. And, first question, by what authority would we be ruled by myth? By any particular myth? Any authority one could name crumbles in the face of the right to rule and be ruled by reason.

    That's why there's a duty to be rational, at least in your role as governor. And you can't be any good at without training and practice.

    The enlightenment may have enfranchised the people but without more they are mere nominal citizens, at best. This being the foundation of the nation, the role assigned to the citizen, to the extent an American is not with it, that American is not an American.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  33. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    340

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Liberalism has its ugly side. In a moment of reckless candor, Locke wrote (2nd Treat) that the

    purpose of government was to put a fence around individuals' property.

    And that devolved into neo-liberalism which cheerfully supports the One Percent

    against the starving masses . .

    (Half of the people who now live in the US cannot afford to do so. Neo-libs are fine with that)

    Cue A-O-C

  34. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,118

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Locke was but a somewhat flawed construct of his times. It shows...
    Xanthorrea

  35. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,948

    Default Re: Locke & Liberalism

    Quote Originally Posted by sandtown View Post
    Liberalism has its ugly side. In a moment of reckless candor, Locke wrote (2nd Treat) that the

    purpose of government was to put a fence around individuals' property.

    And that devolved into neo-liberalism which cheerfully supports the One Percent

    against the starving masses . .

    (Half of the people who now live in the US cannot afford to do so. Neo-libs are fine with that)

    Cue A-O-C
    A bit more than that has happened.

    One can follow the notion that the purpose of government is to protect property and claim that's the most important part, but you can also follow the inalienable rights aspect of liberalism, and often find yourself in a different position.

    Rights can collide. When the right to your own soul collides with the rights to property someone has purchased, which prevails, and before even that conundrum can occur, at what point are you ensouled? That' vital to the debate over abortion. You don't own your soul until you have one. With liberalism, who counts as a person is central to the moral calculus. The reason your post made me think of this is, the argument for choice is based on a woman's right to determine how her body is used, but that cannot override the right of another person to exist, so the reason we have such acrimonious arguments about abortion is that we don't agree on who counts as a person. Few today would agree with Aristotle's claim that the baby is not ensouled until first laughter, about 90 days after birth. More would agree with St. Augustine's view that the unborn infant is ensouled at the quickening, when the baby first kicks inside the womb.

    A lot of the change in morals over the last few centuries has been over who counts as a person. It was when white people started to see people of sub-Saharan African descent as people that slavery became untenable. The Civil War was fought over whether the property rights you complain of were more important than people's natural ownership of themselves.

    So, yeah, it's a philosophy about property, but it's also a philosophy about why people cannot be the property of anyone else.

Posting Permissions

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