wkmac
Well-Known Member
Island,wkmac,
I know that many people on BC hate long drawn out posts. I will keep this as short as possible and also as nice as I can possibly be in response to your post with questions for me - and the answer provided by you which shows a high degree of condescending cordiality. I also realize it is Christmas eve--I should be nice not naughty !
It would be very rare that I would mention my college degree and education --but in your case it seems to be appropriate.
I am not a barbarian --Philosopy was a minor for me . I could easily quote Locke,Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant ,Hume{no not Britt} --or hundreds of others to "spin" any argument in any direction.
To briefly stay on your hero Locke{nothing personal against him} I am sure your are aware of his basic premise against the Cartesian position and holds that man is born with "tabula rasa" an empty mind--which is shaped by experience, sensations being the basis and sources for all of our ideas.
Just consider --he lived from 1632 to 1704 --lived mainly in England with a short stint in the Netherlands. What were his experiences compared to Great thinkers and people in today's modern world ? Hope the point did not go over your head .
Also I know you are proud of your stance as a Libertarian --none of my business -but be aware as you crow about Liberty and property rights ---YOUR hero Locke was a major investor in the English Slave Trade through the Royal Africa Company and in his participation in drafting the Constitution of the Carolinas --established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves{yes, wkmac the "good old days"}
Lockes statements on unenclosed property justified the displacement of native Americans --SURPRISE !!!!! Avatar !!!!!
I could go on and on with this post ----comparing how my experiences have shaped my opinions (LOCKES THEORY) --but I am sure that many who have read to this point are bored. So as you have already said --Back to the movie.
P.S.
I am a proud American who fully realizes that as a country or a people -nothing or no one is perfect. I am very tired of the "blame America" first crowd.
It is so very simple to me ---if you are so disgraced and disturbed by our past descretions and History ----You are free --go and live where you believe it is so much better.
I also have great Admiration and love for our military --which is why I originally posted this thread.
I realize this is Christmas eve and I truly hope for peace on earth and goodwill to all men -and may GOD continue to Bless America !!!
Sorry for the delay in response, holidays, blah, blah. Yes I'm familar with Descartes, etc. etc. Locke was not without his warts and as you said, no man is perfect. And there again IMO is the fallacy of a one size fits all system where so-called experts of societal moors determine the course for everyone. Locke as well as others were in a new found discovery IMO and in that they found seeds for us today. Sure, using Descartes' rotten apple barrel, you can throw out all the fruit but even Descartes suggests once done you can inspect the fruit closely and used what you determine is in fact not spoiled. Because Locke, his contemporaries and his future students failed to grasp that "all men" went well beyond the bounds of the "great white man" (more driven by religion than anything) does not mean today as we've filled our own "Tubula Rasa" with a different and broader understanding that we can't harvest the good seeds from Locke's apple barrel to plant a grove of trees in which to harvest a better crop.
And you said God Bless America while condemning Locke for his slavery attitudes. If you maintained a consistency on the issue, you'd divest yourself of all religious ideals as revealed in the 3 great monotheistic faiths being Judiasm, Islam and Christianity as all 3 condone slavery in their writtings. Even Christ in the book of Luke, Chapter 12 used the issue of slavery to teach a parable of the good slave knowing the master's wishes and performing them. Like Locke, seems even Jesus accepted societal norms of his time too and along with Paul, both are oddly very silent as in against on the issue.
I like the fact you say you are an independent and applaud that. Your reply in post 36 of this thread to Jim was very much spot on from top to bottom. But if they are ALL liars, and they are, and you being an independent, why the upset when I attack one side of the group of liars not that I don't attack the other side either. If you like I can just as easily attack the Libertarian party because the last time I voted libertarian was when the late Harry Browne ran for office. Oppps, sorry to blow my cover but if you go back previous to the November elections, you'd already has seen where I stated publically here that I voted for Ralph Nader and with the idea of economics in mind, I'm sure many would think that vote crazy and from one POV I'd completely agree. But then sometimes when a heirarchy that you know will obtain power pretends to be something you know they are not, what better way to point this out than to place someone over them that in fact is what they portray. Fight fire with fire?
Locke taught that property comes about as a result of labor (we're way beyond emient domain here) and then sez that property is inalienable in that no man also being only equal, never above, can not seperate a man from the results of his labor ie property without his consent and he goes further to say that if such man or group of men should ever try and co-op these rights, in defense of the product of his labor he has the right to overthrow (succeed) from any illusion of binding or social contract in order to protect said rights and institute another means or manner in protecting them. Locke taught that man in order to protect his inalienable rights could bound together with other men in a social contract to secure these rights but if that organization overstepped it's means and manner of purpose, then said individual also had the natural right to overthrow and set aside the old social contract and if necessary institute a new one.
Now if Locke were to inspire others to follow this evil madness, should not those men or their ancestors admit their sins, abolish what they've done and thus return to their original position they held prior to their sin? God Bless America you say? The very thing you ask God to Bless was very much from the rotten fruit barrel of Locke himself. I give you the great declaration of Independence and the words and influence of Locke himself!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Island, we see things different and that's a fact I think we both agree on. Avatar is not the first movie to broach the idea of State wrongs and not the last. Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath or Tolstoy's War and Peace could be seen in this manner just as some of Shakesphere's greatest works. Even Tolkien's or his good friend C.S. Lewis' works are seen in similar manner yet do we therefore cast the wide net on them as well? Do we then throw out all the John Wayne movies. some even at republic films were admitted up front for what they were? How about Walter Brennan who was more known than John Wayne for his close ties to the John Birch Society? Do we discount his movies because of his beliefs as well? Not me, I love the guy. I'm a huge fan of Rio Bravo so the idea of throwing out Wayne or Brennan seems beyond the pale yet the story of Rio Bravo is about greed and power of what today would be a corporatist so I guess Wayne and Brennan are anti-capitalists?
Avatar is as has been pointed out, just a movie and yes Cameron has stated what inspired the movie. However, lots of people arcoss the board are coming away with varying points of view and yes I am very interested in the political angle and yes I realize it's probably a bit politically charged, maybe even slanted towards one side of the isle from the other but yes I also see it possible where that seed of property that Locke planted might also bare some fruit because if it's wrong to go in by force and take the land, resources and economic abilities of a group of people from afar, is it not equally wrong to force people at home to give up their property (wages) and other means of property (economic abilities) for the purpose of a political agenda?
Did you ever take lemons and make lemonade?
Review of Avatar at FrontPorchRepublic
Well, Island, it's not about blaming America and with all due respect viewing it as such is childish regardless of any degree(s) one may hold. Don't think for a moment that taking a self examination of the country's military, economic, social, and moral compass suggests any less love of God and Country. That self examination is not a weakness but a stength.
Agreed! Good post!
I don't blame America but I do blame the State and if one wants to co-op themselves into a "group of liars" as one poster here correctly pointed out, then I guess you've saddled yourself on that one!