Life, Liberty, and Property?

[ihopehefails]

The original Jefferson saying of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not make a lot of sense because in other Jefferson writings he suggest that government exist to secure those things but how is it possible for government to secure the third item which is "happiness". Did this mean that government should secure your right to pursue monster energy drinks, anti-depressents, and other things that would help you to achieve happiness? What about other pieces of property such as land, homes, cars, food, and any other material possession you might be able to acquire? Why would the government only exist to secure those items but not other pieces of property?

I believe that Jefferson borrowed his slogan from Locke which went something like this Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property but altered it because of the slavery issue and if this is correct (which I am not sure I am entirely correct) then it would make more sense to believe that Jefferson and many of the founders believed that government existed to secure three things. The first thing is your life as in protecting you from violence either from your fellow citizens or invaders. The second thing is for Liberty as in to ensure it from being taken from you in some form. The third is to protect your right to property because what other thing secures your ability to retain control over your own property from either a foreign invader, domestic thief, or another person wishing to excercise control over your property than the government itself?

 

[lawbuff]

The US SC has also ruled we have the right to pursue happiness, as it is a LIBERTY under the 14th AM.

...While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...

Meyer v. State of Nebraska

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If liberty is happiness, and we've the right to pursue happiness, then we've the right to pursue liberty, yes? Yet a man may not till the soil to feed himself without first acquiring capital to purchase the socially recognized right to work that land from he who now is given that right. Nor may be find shelter from a storm unless he can acquire capital to buy the right to huddle in such shelter or beg for a loan of such rights from another. He may not labour to gain this capital without also selling a portion of his labour to the State (taxation of his wages), effectively buying from his neighbor (who, in the Liberal ideology forms the state, along with all the masses) the socially recognized right to labour in exchange for capital amounting to a portion of the value of his labour (the value his labour adds to product or property, in most cases).

There are no rights in the Capitalist society. Even the right to exist and the means of sustaining one's to sustain one's existence must be purchased. This is the most obvious and debilitating flaw in the Liberal ideology.

 

[uscitizen]

Property? We buy the rights to keep other citizens off our property. However we just "lease" it from the government. Just try not paying your property taxes and see what happens.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Property? We buy the rights to keep other citizens off our property. However we just "lease" it from the government. Just try not paying your property taxes and see what happens.

Paying another for the right to exist and not be thrown in a cage...

They used to call it tribute

 

[DiamondDave]

If liberty is happiness, and we've the right to pursue happiness, then we've the right to pursue liberty, yes? Yet a man may not till the soil to feed himself without first acquiring capital to purchase the socially recognized right to work that land from he who now is given that right. Nor may be find shelter from a storm unless he can acquire capital to buy the right to huddle in such shelter or beg for a loan of such rights from another. He may not labour to gain this capital without also selling a portion of his labour to the State (taxation of his wages), effectively buying from his neighbor (who, in the Liberal ideology forms the state, along with all the masses) the socially recognized right to labour in exchange for capital amounting to a portion of the value of his labour (the value his labour adds to product or property, in most cases).

There are no rights in the Capitalist society. Even the right to exist and the means of sustaining one's to sustain one's existence must be purchased. This is the most obvious and debilitating flaw in the Liberal ideology.

Absolute gibberish bullshit.. no rights in a capitalist society??? LMFAO

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If liberty is happiness, and we've the right to pursue happiness, then we've the right to pursue liberty, yes? Yet a man may not till the soil to feed himself without first acquiring capital to purchase the socially recognized right to work that land from he who now is given that right. Nor may be find shelter from a storm unless he can acquire capital to buy the right to huddle in such shelter or beg for a loan of such rights from another. He may not labour to gain this capital without also selling a portion of his labour to the State (taxation of his wages), effectively buying from his neighbor (who, in the Liberal ideology forms the state, along with all the masses) the socially recognized right to labour in exchange for capital amounting to a portion of the value of his labour (the value his labour adds to product or property, in most cases).

There are no rights in the Capitalist society. Even the right to exist and the means of sustaining one's to sustain one's existence must be purchased. This is the most obvious and debilitating flaw in the Liberal ideology.

Absolute gibberish bullshit.. no rights in a capitalist society??? LMFAO

If I tell a man he is free, yet I keep him in a cage, my assertions regarding his freedom are meaningless. Similarly, to tell a man he has a right to be ( a prerequisite to any right to be in any state, such as liberty or equality), yet I do not recognize any right to the means of sustaining his existence (such as food), my assertions regarding his rights are shown to be empty rhetoric. The capitalist society recognizes no right to the means or propagating one's own existence unless one can acquire capital and purchase these means (thus, there is no right to it, only a right to purchase it). Thusly, a man has, in the Capitol-liberal society, no meaningful right to exist. He has only the right to sustain himself as he is able within the confines of his right to purchase what he needs to exist in exchange for capital.

If He has no capital, he has he right to either become as a stray dog begging for scraps or to sell his liberty, labour, and life in exchange for the capital he needs to purchase the means to sustain his existence so that may continue to labour to acquire the capital he needs to sustain his existence and attempt to improve his condition.

 

[DiamondDave]

If liberty is happiness, and we've the right to pursue happiness, then we've the right to pursue liberty, yes? Yet a man may not till the soil to feed himself without first acquiring capital to purchase the socially recognized right to work that land from he who now is given that right. Nor may be find shelter from a storm unless he can acquire capital to buy the right to huddle in such shelter or beg for a loan of such rights from another. He may not labour to gain this capital without also selling a portion of his labour to the State (taxation of his wages), effectively buying from his neighbor (who, in the Liberal ideology forms the state, along with all the masses) the socially recognized right to labour in exchange for capital amounting to a portion of the value of his labour (the value his labour adds to product or property, in most cases).

There are no rights in the Capitalist society. Even the right to exist and the means of sustaining one's to sustain one's existence must be purchased. This is the most obvious and debilitating flaw in the Liberal ideology.

Absolute gibberish bullshit.. no rights in a capitalist society??? LMFAO

If I tell a man he is free, yet I keep him in a cage, my assertions regarding his freedom are meaningless. Similarly, to tell a man he has a right to be ( a prerequisite to any right to be in any state, such as liberty or equality), yet I do not recognize any right to the means of sustaining his existence (such as food), my assertions regarding his rights are shown to be empty rhetoric. The capitalist society recognizes no right to the means or propagating one's own existence unless one can acquire capital and purchase these means (thus, there is no right to it, only a right to purchase it). Thusly, a man has, in the Capitol-liberal society, no meaningful right to exist. He has only the right to sustain himself as he is able within the confines of his right to purchase what he needs to exist in exchange for capital.

If He has no capital, he has he right to either become as a stray dog begging for scraps or to sell his liberty, labour, and life in exchange for the capital he needs to purchase the means to sustain his existence so that may continue to labour to acquire the capital he needs to sustain his existence and attempt to improve his condition.

Absolute pseudo-intellectual neo-communist bullshit

1) You do not have the right capital or the inherent right to any good or service
2) The right to exist or to pursue something does not give you the right TO that thing
3) You do not have the rights to a means (I.E. the right to be given a job or compensation simply because you want it), but you do have a right to use your abilities and make your choices to derive that compensation (or the lack of it) FOR YOURSELF without a forced imposition on another citizen

 

[DiamondDave]

There are positives AND negatives that come with having your freedoms, you commie idiot.. and you do not get to negate those negatives that are inherent to freedom by stepping on the individual rights of others to give you entitlements

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You do not have the right capital or the inherent right to any good or service

If a man has no right to food, then he has no meaningful right to exist, for he is denied the right to the means of sustaining his existence.

That's like saying you have a right to be free, but no right to b e let out of the cage in which you hare locked.

You do not have the rights to a means (I.E. the right to be given a job or compensation simply because you want it), but you do have a right to use your abilities and make your choices to derive that compensation

as I said, you may sell yourself for labour wages- you are given this right alone, and no right top exist in the first place except insomuch as you can acquire the means to do so by selling yourself (or otherwise acquiring capital). You say a man has a right to exist, yet no right to the means of sustaining his existence. This makes you assertions regarding his right to exist meaningless rhetoric.

without a forced imposition on another citizen

you mean like being forced to pay tribute (taxation) so that the ruling class need not work themselves?

 

[DiamondDave]

You do not have the right capital or the inherent right to any good or service

If a man has no right to food, then he has no meaningful right to exist, for he is denied the right to the means of sustaining his existence.

That's like saying you have a right to be free, but no right to b e let out of the cage in which you hare locked.

You do not have the rights to a means (I.E. the right to be given a job or compensation simply because you want it), but you do have a right to use your abilities and make your choices to derive that compensation

as I said, you may sell yourself for labour wages- you are given this right alone, and no right top exist in the first place except insomuch as you can acquire the means to do so by selling yourself (or otherwise acquiring capital). You say a man has a right to exist, yet no right to the means of sustaining his existence. This makes you assertions regarding his right to exist meaningless rhetoric.

without a forced imposition on another citizen

you mean like being forced to pay tribute (taxation) so that the ruling class need not work themselves?

Bullshit.. you have the right to exist to fend for yourself, earn for yourself, and provide for yourself and your well being.. the right to exist does not come with the right to food or to a house or to a mate or anything else.... you have the freedom to succeed as well as the freedom to fail.... you do not get your cake and eat it too

And YOU talking about ruling class??? Absolutely laughable you fucking ignoramus... Your little faulty system of 'communism' or 'socialism' cannot exist without a ruling class to force redistribution to non-contributors and to force contributors to give up the fruits of their own labor for the use of another...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Bullshit.. you have the right to exist to fend for yourself

You have the right to exist, but not to the means to sustain that existence? Does a man have a right to travel freely, but not to be unchained from a rock?

And YOU talking about ruling class??? Absolutely laughable you fucking ignoramus... Your little faulty system of 'communism' or 'socialism' cannot exist without a ruling class

The ruling class in socialism is all the people; no class rules over another. Kinda like liberal promises, but in socialism it's the reality.

 

[ihopehefails]

I was trying to point out when the founders believed that govt existed to secure our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they might have meant life, liberty, and pursuit of property but could not use the word property because of the slavery issue.

This makes more sense to me because what other force defines who owns what and who can use what is out there than the government itself. When you own a piece of land the government draws boundries that everyone recognizes so government has an instrumental role in securing your rights to your property.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bullshit.. you have the right to exist to fend for yourself

You have the right to exist, but not to the means to sustain that existence? Does a man have a right to travel freely, but not to be unchained from a rock?

And YOU talking about ruling class??? Absolutely laughable you fucking ignoramus... Your little faulty system of 'communism' or 'socialism' cannot exist without a ruling class

The ruling class in socialism is all the people; no class rules over another. Kinda like liberal promises, but in socialism it's the reality.

You have the right to use your ability to make the means for your success or failure.. including whether you eat rice or whether you eat steak

The ruling class in socialism is NOT the people, my misguided little commie.... to enforce the wealth redistribution and the forcing of extra effort by the actual producers (which they do not see the complete fruits of their own labor, thanks to this forced system) socialism and communism requires the ruling elite which we have seen in every socialist and communist system.... these systems are based on force, and not freedom.. INHERENTLY

 

[uscitizen]

socialism, capitalism and communism requires the ruling elite which we have seen in every socialist, capitalist and communist system.... these systems are based on force, and not freedom.. INHERENTLY

fixed that for ya.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The ruling class in socialism is NOT the people, my misguided little commie.... to enforce the wealth redistribution and the forcing of extra effort by the actual producers (which they do not see the complete fruits of their own labor, thanks to this forced system) socialism and communism requires the ruling elite which we have seen in every socialist and communist system.... these systems are based on force, and not freedom.. INHERENTLY

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage
Ganas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acorn Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
East Wind Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are others. Socialism = Egalitarian Democracy. Socialist RepresentativeDemocracy = Social Democracy.

 

[ihopehefails]

If liberty is happiness, and we've the right to pursue happiness, then we've the right to pursue liberty, yes? Yet a man may not till the soil to feed himself without first acquiring capital to purchase the socially recognized right to work that land from he who now is given that right. Nor may be find shelter from a storm unless he can acquire capital to buy the right to huddle in such shelter or beg for a loan of such rights from another. He may not labour to gain this capital without also selling a portion of his labour to the State (taxation of his wages), effectively buying from his neighbor (who, in the Liberal ideology forms the state, along with all the masses) the socially recognized right to labour in exchange for capital amounting to a portion of the value of his labour (the value his labour adds to product or property, in most cases).

There are no rights in the Capitalist society. Even the right to exist and the means of sustaining one's to sustain one's existence must be purchased. This is the most obvious and debilitating flaw in the Liberal ideology.

Absolute gibberish bullshit.. no rights in a capitalist society??? LMFAO

If I tell a man he is free, yet I keep him in a cage, my assertions regarding his freedom are meaningless. Similarly, to tell a man he has a right to be ( a prerequisite to any right to be in any state, such as liberty or equality), yet I do not recognize any right to the means of sustaining his existence (such as food), my assertions regarding his rights are shown to be empty rhetoric. The capitalist society recognizes no right to the means or propagating one's own existence unless one can acquire capital and purchase these means (thus, there is no right to it, only a right to purchase it). Thusly, a man has, in the Capitol-liberal society, no meaningful right to exist. He has only the right to sustain himself as he is able within the confines of his right to purchase what he needs to exist in exchange for capital.

If He has no capital, he has he right to either become as a stray dog begging for scraps or to sell his liberty, labour, and life in exchange for the capital he needs to purchase the means to sustain his existence so that may continue to labour to acquire the capital he needs to sustain his existence and attempt to improve his condition.

This sums up a point about the concept of liberty and that liberty is the right to pursue which is someone's free action like going out there and buying health insurance or speaking out against a govt policy. Freedom only consist of your right to pursue something only it does not garantee your right to possess something. That is the byproduct of your "pursuit".

 

[uscitizen]

So freedom is largely chasing your own tail while proclamiing freedom to do so?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You can't have the right to own by itself without the right to pursue because how do you obtain something if you can't pursue it in the first place?

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

 

[ihopehefails]

The ruling class in socialism is NOT the people, my misguided little commie.... to enforce the wealth redistribution and the forcing of extra effort by the actual producers (which they do not see the complete fruits of their own labor, thanks to this forced system) socialism and communism requires the ruling elite which we have seen in every socialist and communist system.... these systems are based on force, and not freedom.. INHERENTLY

Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage
Ganas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acorn Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
East Wind Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are others. Socialism = Egalitarian Democracy. Socialist Representational Democracy = Social Democracy.

Yep.