Anyone who describes themselves in their bio as a "The leading expert on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence" deserves not only derision but a trip to the psych ward. And your hyperbolic and breathless condemnation of countries being assaulted with unbelievable inhumanity in service of old imperial ego and avarice, as well as …
Anyone who describes themselves in their bio as a "The leading expert on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence" deserves not only derision but a trip to the psych ward. And your hyperbolic and breathless condemnation of countries being assaulted with unbelievable inhumanity in service of old imperial ego and avarice, as well as organizations that have provided more than a modicum of independence stability, and growth to places that would just be victims of the same kind of aggression otherwise makes you not only nuts but illiterate.
I thought exactly the same thing, but think your reference to the psych ward was a bit harsh - to those occupying it. Still, I believe he's a troll and best handled by ignoring him/her/it.
The former leading expert on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence was Michael Zuckert. I demolished his interpretation in my article, The Declaration of Independence without Locke," which is online here:
Michael Zuckert's dismissal of Burlamaqui and Hutcheson as inspiration for the Declaration of Independence is fatally flawed. Burlamaqui said exactly what Zuckert doubts that Burlamaqui could have said regarding the purpose of government (to secure rights). Zuckert's attempt to explain the "pursuit of happiness" in terms of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding fails, because Zuckert's two chosen examples of parallel documents both echo Hutcheson and Burlamaqui (but not Locke) on obtaining happiness; and the 1776 congressional definition of happiness includes virtue, in common with the Ciceronian tradition of Hutcheson and Burlamaqui, in opposition to Locke. In this Ciceronian tradition, rights are derived from duties, and virtue is the "perfection" of human nature, with happiness as the result. This view is prominently expressed by Burlamaqui's student Vattel, whose "The Law of Nations" was carefully followed by the Continental Congress as it went through the procedure of establishing and then declaring independence.
Anyone who describes themselves in their bio as a "The leading expert on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence" deserves not only derision but a trip to the psych ward. And your hyperbolic and breathless condemnation of countries being assaulted with unbelievable inhumanity in service of old imperial ego and avarice, as well as organizations that have provided more than a modicum of independence stability, and growth to places that would just be victims of the same kind of aggression otherwise makes you not only nuts but illiterate.
I thought exactly the same thing, but think your reference to the psych ward was a bit harsh - to those occupying it. Still, I believe he's a troll and best handled by ignoring him/her/it.
Nancy Fleming,
You may view my reply to James here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-12-2023/comment/18542362
But why would she?
My thought exactly!
Miselle,
You may view my reply to James here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-12-2023/comment/18542362
James,
The former leading expert on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence was Michael Zuckert. I demolished his interpretation in my article, The Declaration of Independence without Locke," which is online here:
https://www.academia.edu/29164747/The_Declaration_of_Independence_without_Locke_A_Rebuttal_of_Michael_Zuckerts_Natural_Rights_Republic_
Here is the synopsis of my article:
Michael Zuckert's dismissal of Burlamaqui and Hutcheson as inspiration for the Declaration of Independence is fatally flawed. Burlamaqui said exactly what Zuckert doubts that Burlamaqui could have said regarding the purpose of government (to secure rights). Zuckert's attempt to explain the "pursuit of happiness" in terms of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding fails, because Zuckert's two chosen examples of parallel documents both echo Hutcheson and Burlamaqui (but not Locke) on obtaining happiness; and the 1776 congressional definition of happiness includes virtue, in common with the Ciceronian tradition of Hutcheson and Burlamaqui, in opposition to Locke. In this Ciceronian tradition, rights are derived from duties, and virtue is the "perfection" of human nature, with happiness as the result. This view is prominently expressed by Burlamaqui's student Vattel, whose "The Law of Nations" was carefully followed by the Continental Congress as it went through the procedure of establishing and then declaring independence.