“Safe and sane” fireworks nearly continuous explosions since sunset here … at least I’m not hearing any gunfire.
Happy birthday to a nation conceived in liberty.
25 thoughts on “Happy Fourth of July, y’all”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I translated that into the modern terminology.
Yes, I could hear the sound of fireworks all evening.
Growing up in Australia, fireworks were normally heard on Nov. 5th (Guy Fawkes Day), which celebrates the failure of another terrorist plot.
Yes, I wonder if the “indians” who were already here would agree that the U.S. was conceived in liberty. John Locke theorized that they couldn’t actually have any right to any land they weren’t “cultivating”–the colonists who fenced it and used it in some manner that the British endorsed were the only ones with legitimate claims.
I enjoy the fact that it was also Locke who inspired the colonists to rebel. “What goes around comes around.” But there’s your “liberty”: it was, as one might expect, largely a matter of serving personal interests.
Later, any southern slave-owners who fought on the side of abolition during the Civil War, giving up the benefits they were getting from the existing situation could be justly considered fighters for liberty. But…how many such saints were there?
I mean, I groused just yesterday when I saw that my tax bill had gone up as a result of the implementation of a provision of our local by-laws I had actually voted for!
My cat liked his 4th of July treat but did not like the fireworks.
Small minded USAmerican thinks this is an appropriate place to spew her ‘pride’.
There’s more gunfire in the USA than any other country on earth.
I read Locke lately and he is right.
any land not used by man remains in a state of nature or rather belongs to all men. Just like the oceans three miles off.
Therefore the indians did not own, collectivly or in tribes, anm,erica. It was free land except for the parts used by the Indians. At most 2-4%.
The indians also not using the land did not claim it was theirs . only later when seeing it was being possessed.
Happy birthday america
The nation was conceived in liberty but the people/civilization was from segregated English peoples with different agendas.
Only the practical nation came from liberity and that not new liberity but insinting on ancient liberties.
The South did not fight for liberity but to say they were not held to the contract of a common nation.
That started the fight and it was always about identity. It was never about slavery.
its a myth.
america is the best nation ever but still must enforce contracts.
Freedom to teach the truth in origins is one of them. Freedom from attack on ones faith , by evolution, ia another unless rebuttal.
Also to take back the rightful power of the people to rule from illegal court attempts to rule the people.
I won’t go into my views regarding the problems with Locke’s theory of private property here except to say that you shouldn’t stop with Locke, Robert. Move on to Henry George. I predict you’ll like him too–he’s even got lots of Biblical references. Beautiful writer in addition to saying many brilliant things.
Locke is the man who truly justified the revolution in Englan/firing the King and the Yank revolution.
I wrote down this Henry George and check him out but what could he add. its more then private property.
Robert Byers,
You better be keeping your garden tidy or I’m moving in.
Nothing says “Happy Birthday America” like Tom Selleck firing an assault rifle at Big Foot.
Or Teddy Roosevelt, as the case may be. 🙂
The cartoon was from a whole series mocking various US presidents with (appropriate??) anachronisms. But sorry, I’ve lost the link to the series. 🙁
After contract the garden is just mine. Otherwise trhe earth belongs to all and then any work done , the results belong the worker.
After Locke
You need to read a few more sentences, Robert. Locke made the land on which the work was done also owned by the laborer since on his view the labor infused it (kind of like peeing into a stream). That’s the problem–at least when there’s not “enough and as good” to go around. It was basically a matter of fencing as much as cultivating: if I fence the land from here to the river, it’s mine. The native Americans didn’t fence.
I understood it was only the labour that belonged to one. Then contracts amongst men about boundaries.
However if he did say the land where the work is done becomes ones properity then its okay as long as no one else has used it and claimed it.
The indians never used it or claimed it to about 95% plus of the land.
So it was free for all mankind including other indian wandering tribes.
If land becomes cultivated then it would be the same thing as ones work making the land fruitful and so ones property.
The English colonists largely gained free land. Its a myth to say Indians by tribe or collective race possessed the empty land.
locke is saying what belongs too you belongs too you but otherwise it doesn’t. Walking around doesn’t make something yours anymore then sailing the sea makes it yours. You must make it usefull and show you are doing so and then men have contracts or boundaries.
Don’t cross boundaries or have your boundaries cross free land.
.
Only if you are an uncritical Lockean. Indians weren’t. Indians shared. Englishmen only knew possession, not sharing.
Right. I’m certainly not saying that the colonists should have held that the Indians owned the land, and THAT’s why it wasn’t available to be monopolized by newcomers. The whole principle of deriving ownership of the land from ownership of one’s labor is confused.
no its not sharing. its real claims being made or not. They were no different then anyone else. The land was empty and they had no use for it. So no claim to it or work in it. Where they did they did get pushy with each other.
Its simple as Locke said. The earth belongs to all people. Until one has created by ones work with the resources . Then that belongs to that worker only.
If the results of the work demands the land be claimed by the worker to ensure his claim then its become his property. Anyways the land by contract is divided up.
No contract and the land is free save for that used for results from labour.
Its all about freedom to possess what you have created and then about contact between people.
So the English were not invading Indian land. It was , largely, free land for all mankind.
Right. It was free to hunt and camp on until some colonist said, “Oh sorry, this is mine now. You’re trespassing.”
And elsewhere commons were used for farming too. Until they were enclosed. It’s all very nice if you’re the first one to get to say, “All this is mine.”
Anyhow, as I said, you should read George. His Progress and Poverty was a huge best-seller in the late 19th Century. He ran for Mayor of NY City in (I think) 1897. He didn’t win, but he did beat Teddy Roosevelt, who came in third. I really think you’ll like him. Beautiful prose, and at least as many Biblical references as Locke. It’s free on-line all over the place.
So you insist Indians were as Lockean as Englishmen?
Seriously, Indian disputes with each other were not over territory, particularly not among Indians of the plains. Their wars were over land use. When they made territorial agreements with whites, they often enough understood that they were precisely sharing, not giving their own land away. Surely they knew what selling means – they bought guns and gunpowder and sold animal skins -, it’s just that land was not a thing to be bought and sold for them. Land was common in the most profound sense.
In was based on the case.
Yes I think your right they didn’t fight over ownership of land but the use of it here and there.
Yes they wouldn’t easily understand why the land would be bought as it was useless to them.
Yet they didn’t own to begin with largely.
In reality we never needed to buy it from them. it was a kindness and a reflection on our ideas of ownership. everyone got it wrong except Locke.
They didn’t own the land because the concept of land ownership was an oxymoron to them. But no, land was not “useless”. It’s Mother Earth that provides everything, so it’s the most useful thing. Except that it’s not a thing, particularly not the kind of thing to be bought and sold.
All colonists got it wrong, both conceptually and morally. Including Locke.
Thought people interested in the issue of landownership might enjoy this:
http://thedepression.org.au/?p=23012
Here’s an illustration of Leggett’s point, from Six Centuries of Work and Wages – The History of English Labour, James E. Thorold Rogers, T. Fisher Unwin, 12th edition, London, 1912, pp. 326-327.
http://thedepression.org.au/?p=797
Lots of food for thought there, Walto. Thanks for posting that.