Arlo and Janis by Jimmy Johnson for July 02, 2013

Apparently, not too many signed up for this class.

Man, I taught for years and I can’t do that! That being said, (see what I did there?), I’ve said all my life that all a good teacher needs is a blackboard and enough chalk…..If you can’t explain something that way, you’re just not a good teacher…BTW, that is what teachers do. They just explain things….They really should be called explainers…

I do think one big thing missing the the teacher actually writing on the board, so the students have time to write the notes down. With PowerPoints and PDFs on the projector, the instruction is rushed too much.

We should be thinking about what Life and Liberty mean as well. If they were truly self-explanatory we’d have a lot more of both.

The right to remain silent?

The disturbing trend we are in now as far as liberty and the pursuit of happiness is that we are willing to trade off liberties for the sake of saftey, thinking somehow that this will bring happiness. If governmental control of your basic liberties is your thing have at it, just don’t include me in the process.

It’s interesting to see the “performer” in panel is audienceless. The pursuit doesn’t guarantee success.

Think I have heard that the “pursuit of happiness” was a popular phrase of the day (1770s), an opposite to the dour New England puritanism that justified community control over the lives of individuals.

Funny how things never seem to change.

The French phrase at the time was Life, Liberty, Property.But the American revolutionaries were not after land reform.

In a political context in the 18th century, “happiness” meant a government that secured both order and liberty. Locke was sufficiently before Jefferson that the definition of “property” was changing from goods to real estate and Jefferson did not want any confusion over the minority opinion of the time that more rights went to those who owned a section of rural land or an acre of urban, minimum (even though Jefferson did).

@pschearerThe removal of “property” was quite subversive, but perhaps intentionally so. What can be inferred from that right’s not being included among “self-evident” truths is that the right to property should not be considered as fundamental as those of life & liberty. Franklin & Jefferson were not taking a Proudhon-ian position, but suggesting that the right to property might be subject to regulation based on changes in social and economic situations.

This is a hot issue currently, considering the almost dominant strain of American thought today that considers the rich man’s property of more importance than the poor man’s liberty.

Thanks and congratulations for all the thoughtful comments here. Have a happy Fourth.

pursuit of happiness, by NOT being at Arlo’s lecture!!that is the one example

Interesting discussion, all!

I never knew that Arlo was a teacher, or,more likely a college professor.

There was a lot more pursuing of happiness in 1770’s than there is today. Those people knew how to party like it was 1799.