If this board is any

[Mr.Fitnah]

You still haven't provided much of anything that supports the notion that your rights are being infringed upon.

Furthermore, Locke's credo of "Life, Liberty, and Property" was stolen by the founders, but changed to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Now why would they do that?

Okay, you don't like taxes. I fail to see how that is an infringement upon your rights. If you hate taxes, change the policies and laws. Taxes are not innate or inherent.

I also fail to see how reporting your deposits causes you any sort of net harm either.

Just moo along

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Im am really so embarrassed,

 

[Intense]

It wasn't stolen, are We don't be lame. Jefferson changed it, being partial to the French perspective. Personally I think He should have Added it rather than substituted. That's how I look at it. Shared Idea's are not stolen.

Like Hamilton are You going to deny Enumerated Powers? The cost of Government takes from All that actually work. I'm sorry, but it is past abusive. That's all You are going to get for now.

You are dodging the question. I'll provide the answer:

The founding fathers changed a concrete and quantifiable concept like "property" to an abstract and non-quantifiable concept like "pursuit of happiness", because they did not believe that all men (and no women) were entitled to property. It had nothing to do with a hoodwink by Hamilton, they were products of their time where only white males who owned property were allowed access to any power.

The country you are arguing for is an abstract concept that never existed.

If anything, we have gained liberties in the past 250+ years. Now, any citizen can own property and vote.

So, and again, how are your liberties being infringed upon by the government?

I'll agree that there are some problems. I thought Kelo was a terrible decision. However, if the problem ever becomes large enough, we have the means to address it.

I'm not dodging the question. The assumption is false, so is Your premise. I credit You for effort.


I credit Jefferson and Madison for the contribution of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as part of Our Foundation. The English, from Locke, was "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", My understanding is that the French, put the twist on it, Jefferson, partial to the French, went that route. The concept is perceived to include ownership of possessions, though unspoken.

You are confusing owning Real Estate and the Right to Vote with the Natural Right, Unalienable Right, of Possession. I may own things other than Real Estate that are My Property, which are protected morally, ethically, by God and State, regardless of My voting qualification.

We are All products of Our time and victims of unqualified, unjustified obstruction. We find the remedy through reason and due process. The foundation for the Country I described is an Ideal, for which, the foundation has already been laid. The Key in part, is to not ignore the missteps, but recognize, address, and rectify the problems that are caused. Equitable Resolution. Justice is pretty much recognized universally in every tongue, every culture, with rare exception. Find the common denominator.

One of the Liberties We All have lost is the right to Privacy. Too bad it was not listed in the Bill of Rights. True there is more We can do today, yet the root of that is invention more than administration.

Hamilton traded Government's role as the Impartial Civil Administrator and Referee, for Power and Control, insulating Government from account to the People. He saw Us more as a commodity, a Menu item.

My position on Slavery, is very similar to that of Thoreau. Even in revolutionary times it was controversial. The more weighted issue was Unity in opposing England, through the early 1800's, had We split, we most probably not survived independent of the World Powers. Government intervention in Our lives remained pretty limited until the 1900's. We are controlled through the purse now, something You will soon find out after Graduate School.

Our Foundation provides for remedy. What percentage of the GNP is Righteous when applied to the cost of running Government? True Federalism restricts the boundaries of both Federal and State, Each being Sovereign within Their Own Powers and Jurisdiction.

 

[geauxtohell]

It wasn't stolen, are We don't be lame. Jefferson changed it, being partial to the French perspective. Personally I think He should have Added it rather than substituted. That's how I look at it. Shared Idea's are not stolen.

Like Hamilton are You going to deny Enumerated Powers? The cost of Government takes from All that actually work. I'm sorry, but it is past abusive. That's all You are going to get for now.

You are dodging the question. I'll provide the answer:

The founding fathers changed a concrete and quantifiable concept like "property" to an abstract and non-quantifiable concept like "pursuit of happiness", because they did not believe that all men (and no women) were entitled to property. It had nothing to do with a hoodwink by Hamilton, they were products of their time where only white males who owned property were allowed access to any power.

The country you are arguing for is an abstract concept that never existed.

If anything, we have gained liberties in the past 250+ years. Now, any citizen can own property and vote.

So, and again, how are your liberties being infringed upon by the government?

I'll agree that there are some problems. I thought Kelo was a terrible decision. However, if the problem ever becomes large enough, we have the means to address it.

I'm not dodging the question. The assumption is false, so is Your premise. I credit You for effort.


I credit Jefferson and Madison for the contribution of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as part of Our Foundation. The English, from Locke, was "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", My understanding is that the French, put the twist on it, Jefferson, partial to the French, went that route. The concept is perceived to include ownership of possessions, though unspoken.

You are confusing owning Real Estate and the Right to Vote with the Natural Right, Unalienable Right, of Possession. I may own things other than Real Estate that are My Property, which are protected morally, ethically, by God and State, regardless of My voting qualification.

We are All products of Our time and victims of unqualified, unjustified obstruction. We find the remedy through reason and due process. The foundation for the Country I described is an Ideal, for which, the foundation has already been laid. The Key in part, is to not ignore the missteps, but recognize, address, and rectify the problems that are caused. Equitable Resolution. Justice is pretty much recognized universally in every tongue, every culture, with rare exception. Find the common denominator.

One of the Liberties We All have lost is the right to Privacy. Too bad it was not listed in the Bill of Rights. True there is more We can do today, yet the root of that is invention more than administration.

Hamilton traded Government's role as the Impartial Civil Administrator and Referee, for Power and Control, insulating Government from account to the People. He saw Us more as a commodity, a Menu item.

My position on Slavery, is very similar to that of Thoreau. Even in revolutionary times it was controversial. The more weighted issue was Unity in opposing England, through the early 1800's, had We split, we most probably not survived independent of the World Powers. Government intervention in Our lives remained pretty limited until the 1900's. We are controlled through the purse now, something You will soon find out after Graduate School.

Our Foundation provides for remedy. What percentage of the GNP is Righteous when applied to the cost of running Government? True Federalism restricts the boundaries of both Federal and State, Each being Sovereign within Their Own Powers and Jurisdiction.

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It was never a right or a liberty.

Locke's mantra was never "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It was always "Life, Liberty, and property". That wording was not adopted by the founders.

I have explained why. It had nothing to do with the French. We were British colonies and our founders, while well read and versed in other philosophies, were very much cut from the British mold, where property rights were reserved for the few.

Again, we have gained liberties since the "good old days". Not lost them.

 

[geauxtohell]

Im am really so embarrassed,

About your contribution on this thread? You should be.

 

[Intense]

You are dodging the question. I'll provide the answer:

The founding fathers changed a concrete and quantifiable concept like "property" to an abstract and non-quantifiable concept like "pursuit of happiness", because they did not believe that all men (and no women) were entitled to property. It had nothing to do with a hoodwink by Hamilton, they were products of their time where only white males who owned property were allowed access to any power.

The country you are arguing for is an abstract concept that never existed.

If anything, we have gained liberties in the past 250+ years. Now, any citizen can own property and vote.

So, and again, how are your liberties being infringed upon by the government?

I'll agree that there are some problems. I thought Kelo was a terrible decision. However, if the problem ever becomes large enough, we have the means to address it.

I'm not dodging the question. The assumption is false, so is Your premise. I credit You for effort.


I credit Jefferson and Madison for the contribution of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as part of Our Foundation. The English, from Locke, was "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", My understanding is that the French, put the twist on it, Jefferson, partial to the French, went that route. The concept is perceived to include ownership of possessions, though unspoken.

You are confusing owning Real Estate and the Right to Vote with the Natural Right, Unalienable Right, of Possession. I may own things other than Real Estate that are My Property, which are protected morally, ethically, by God and State, regardless of My voting qualification.

We are All products of Our time and victims of unqualified, unjustified obstruction. We find the remedy through reason and due process. The foundation for the Country I described is an Ideal, for which, the foundation has already been laid. The Key in part, is to not ignore the missteps, but recognize, address, and rectify the problems that are caused. Equitable Resolution. Justice is pretty much recognized universally in every tongue, every culture, with rare exception. Find the common denominator.

One of the Liberties We All have lost is the right to Privacy. Too bad it was not listed in the Bill of Rights. True there is more We can do today, yet the root of that is invention more than administration.

Hamilton traded Government's role as the Impartial Civil Administrator and Referee, for Power and Control, insulating Government from account to the People. He saw Us more as a commodity, a Menu item.

My position on Slavery, is very similar to that of Thoreau. Even in revolutionary times it was controversial. The more weighted issue was Unity in opposing England, through the early 1800's, had We split, we most probably not survived independent of the World Powers. Government intervention in Our lives remained pretty limited until the 1900's. We are controlled through the purse now, something You will soon find out after Graduate School.

Our Foundation provides for remedy. What percentage of the GNP is Righteous when applied to the cost of running Government? True Federalism restricts the boundaries of both Federal and State, Each being Sovereign within Their Own Powers and Jurisdiction.

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It was never a right or a liberty.

Locke's mantra was never "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It was always "Life, Liberty, and property". That wording was not adopted by the founders.

I have explained why. It had nothing to do with the French. We were British colonies and our founders, while well read and versed in other philosophies, were very much cut from the British mold, where property rights were reserved for the few.

Again, we have gained liberties since the "good old days". Not lost them.

Privacy may not be recognized by Government, that does not invalidate it as a Natural Right. Reflect on Conscience and Tell Me that You have No Right to Privacy. I'm not saying that it is not conditional, or limited by circumstance, both are debatable, I'm saying that there are Clearly circumstances where it is Violated beyond dispute.

Why or how would You get the Idea that I would even suggest that Lock's Principle was anything other than "Life, Liberty, and Property"?

My understanding of Jefferson's "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" being implemented, a French adaptation, I believe came from a book I studied, which I will check into and get back to You on.

Wiki tells it a little different.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a famous phrase. For other uses, see The Pursuit of Happiness.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.

[edit] Origin and phrasing
Some believe that the famous phrase is based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1] Others believe that the phrase comes from Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. See the Introduction, Section 2, of the Nature of Laws in General.

The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness."[2] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

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.




A differing analysis on the origin of this phrase was provided in his (award winning) book “INVENTING AMERICA Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence”, where historian Garry Wills argues [final paragraph, part two]:

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government. But to understand why he considered the pursuit of that happiness an unalienable right, we must look to another aspect of Enlightenment thought - to the science of morality.

Wills addresses the “the science of morality” in part three (regarding “the pursuit of happiness”, eminently in chapters 16-18).

Wills states, “If he [Jefferson] meant to signal dependence on Locke in his Declaration, he chose an odd way of doing it when he omitted the central concept of Locke in its most expected place.” – by substituting “the pursuit of happiness” for “property”. Wills further suggests, “… we should turn to the principal delineator of unalienable rights in Jefferson’s intellectual milieu – to Francis Hutcheson.”

Of Hutcheson, Wills states, “No one did more in the eighteenth century to encourage the measuring of public happiness than did Francis Hutcheson, with his 1725 formula for ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number.’” But Wills also points out that Locke himself used the phrase “pursuit of happiness” conspicuously, and that there was significant agreement by these two men: both saw it as a “constant determination”.

Wills here suggests this contribution from Adam Ferguson:

If, in reality, courage and a heart devoted to the good of mankind are the constituents of human felicity, the kindness which is done infers a happiness in the person from whom it proceeds, not in him on whom it is bestowed; and the greatest good which men possessed of fortitude and generosity can procure to their fellow creatures is a participation of this happy character. If this be the good of the individual, it is likewise that of mankind; and virtue no longer imposes a task by which we are obliged to bestow upon others that good from which we ourselves refrain; but supposes, in the highest degree, as possessed by ourselves, that state of felicity which we are required to promote in the world (Civil Society, 99-100).

Closing for Wills, and his understanding of what Jefferson meant by “the pursuit of happiness”, Wills states:

Within its original rich context, the pursuit of happiness is a phenomenon both obvious and paradoxical. It supplies us with the ground of human right and the goal of human virtue. It is the basic drive of the self, and the only means given for transcending the self.

[edit] Worldwide influence
This tripartite motto is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.[3]

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan, and in President Ho Chi Minh's 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[edit] References
1.^ Locke, John (1690). Two Treatises of Government (10th edition). Project Gutenberg. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
2.^ Franklin, Benjamin (2006). Mark Skousen. ed. Completed Autobiography. Regnery Publishing. pp. 413. ISBN 0895260336.
3.^ Dyck, Rand (2000). Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (3rd edition). Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-0176167929.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness"
Categories: United States Declaration of Independence | Phrases | Human rights

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm not dodging the question. The assumption is false, so is Your premise. I credit You for effort.


I credit Jefferson and Madison for the contribution of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as part of Our Foundation. The English, from Locke, was "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", My understanding is that the French, put the twist on it, Jefferson, partial to the French, went that route. The concept is perceived to include ownership of possessions, though unspoken.

You are confusing owning Real Estate and the Right to Vote with the Natural Right, Unalienable Right, of Possession. I may own things other than Real Estate that are My Property, which are protected morally, ethically, by God and State, regardless of My voting qualification.

We are All products of Our time and victims of unqualified, unjustified obstruction. We find the remedy through reason and due process. The foundation for the Country I described is an Ideal, for which, the foundation has already been laid. The Key in part, is to not ignore the missteps, but recognize, address, and rectify the problems that are caused. Equitable Resolution. Justice is pretty much recognized universally in every tongue, every culture, with rare exception. Find the common denominator.

One of the Liberties We All have lost is the right to Privacy. Too bad it was not listed in the Bill of Rights. True there is more We can do today, yet the root of that is invention more than administration.

Hamilton traded Government's role as the Impartial Civil Administrator and Referee, for Power and Control, insulating Government from account to the People. He saw Us more as a commodity, a Menu item.

My position on Slavery, is very similar to that of Thoreau. Even in revolutionary times it was controversial. The more weighted issue was Unity in opposing England, through the early 1800's, had We split, we most probably not survived independent of the World Powers. Government intervention in Our lives remained pretty limited until the 1900's. We are controlled through the purse now, something You will soon find out after Graduate School.

Our Foundation provides for remedy. What percentage of the GNP is Righteous when applied to the cost of running Government? True Federalism restricts the boundaries of both Federal and State, Each being Sovereign within Their Own Powers and Jurisdiction.

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It was never a right or a liberty.

Locke's mantra was never "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It was always "Life, Liberty, and property". That wording was not adopted by the founders.

I have explained why. It had nothing to do with the French. We were British colonies and our founders, while well read and versed in other philosophies, were very much cut from the British mold, where property rights were reserved for the few.

Again, we have gained liberties since the "good old days". Not lost them.

Privacy may not be recognized by Government, that does not invalidate it as a Natural Right. Reflect on Conscience and Tell Me that You have No Right to Privacy. I'm not saying that it is not conditional, or limited by circumstance, both are debatable, I'm saying that there are Clearly circumstances where it is Violated beyond dispute.

Why or how would You get the Idea that I would even suggest that Lock's Principle was anything other than "Life, Liberty, and Property"?

My understanding of Jefferson's "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" being implemented, a French adaptation, I believe came from a book I studied, which I will check into and get back to You on.

Wiki tells it a little different.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a famous phrase. For other uses, see The Pursuit of Happiness.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.

[edit] Origin and phrasing
Some believe that the famous phrase is based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1] Others believe that the phrase comes from Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. See the Introduction, Section 2, of the Nature of Laws in General.

The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness."[2] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

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.




A differing analysis on the origin of this phrase was provided in his (award winning) book “INVENTING AMERICA Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence”, where historian Garry Wills argues [final paragraph, part two]:

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government. But to understand why he considered the pursuit of that happiness an unalienable right, we must look to another aspect of Enlightenment thought - to the science of morality.

Wills addresses the “the science of morality” in part three (regarding “the pursuit of happiness”, eminently in chapters 16-18).

Wills states, “If he [Jefferson] meant to signal dependence on Locke in his Declaration, he chose an odd way of doing it when he omitted the central concept of Locke in its most expected place.” – by substituting “the pursuit of happiness” for “property”. Wills further suggests, “… we should turn to the principal delineator of unalienable rights in Jefferson’s intellectual milieu – to Francis Hutcheson.”

Of Hutcheson, Wills states, “No one did more in the eighteenth century to encourage the measuring of public happiness than did Francis Hutcheson, with his 1725 formula for ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number.’” But Wills also points out that Locke himself used the phrase “pursuit of happiness” conspicuously, and that there was significant agreement by these two men: both saw it as a “constant determination”.

Wills here suggests this contribution from Adam Ferguson:

If, in reality, courage and a heart devoted to the good of mankind are the constituents of human felicity, the kindness which is done infers a happiness in the person from whom it proceeds, not in him on whom it is bestowed; and the greatest good which men possessed of fortitude and generosity can procure to their fellow creatures is a participation of this happy character. If this be the good of the individual, it is likewise that of mankind; and virtue no longer imposes a task by which we are obliged to bestow upon others that good from which we ourselves refrain; but supposes, in the highest degree, as possessed by ourselves, that state of felicity which we are required to promote in the world (Civil Society, 99-100).

Closing for Wills, and his understanding of what Jefferson meant by “the pursuit of happiness”, Wills states:

Within its original rich context, the pursuit of happiness is a phenomenon both obvious and paradoxical. It supplies us with the ground of human right and the goal of human virtue. It is the basic drive of the self, and the only means given for transcending the self.

[edit] Worldwide influence
This tripartite motto is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.[3]

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan, and in President Ho Chi Minh's 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[edit] References
1.^ Locke, John (1690). Two Treatises of Government (10th edition). Project Gutenberg. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
2.^ Franklin, Benjamin (2006). Mark Skousen. ed. Completed Autobiography. Regnery Publishing. pp. 413. ISBN 0895260336.
3.^ Dyck, Rand (2000). Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (3rd edition). Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-0176167929.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness"
Categories: United States Declaration of Independence | Phrases | Human rights

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Natural rights" are esoterics concepts that are not really relevant.

The only thing that is relevant, is the law, which are the social constructs that we agree to live under.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

So, what rights of yours have been infringed upon by the big, bad government?

 

[Intense]

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It was never a right or a liberty.

Locke's mantra was never "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It was always "Life, Liberty, and property". That wording was not adopted by the founders.

I have explained why. It had nothing to do with the French. We were British colonies and our founders, while well read and versed in other philosophies, were very much cut from the British mold, where property rights were reserved for the few.

Again, we have gained liberties since the "good old days". Not lost them.

Privacy may not be recognized by Government, that does not invalidate it as a Natural Right. Reflect on Conscience and Tell Me that You have No Right to Privacy. I'm not saying that it is not conditional, or limited by circumstance, both are debatable, I'm saying that there are Clearly circumstances where it is Violated beyond dispute.

Why or how would You get the Idea that I would even suggest that Lock's Principle was anything other than "Life, Liberty, and Property"?

My understanding of Jefferson's "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" being implemented, a French adaptation, I believe came from a book I studied, which I will check into and get back to You on.

Wiki tells it a little different.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a famous phrase. For other uses, see The Pursuit of Happiness.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.

[edit] Origin and phrasing
Some believe that the famous phrase is based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1] Others believe that the phrase comes from Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. See the Introduction, Section 2, of the Nature of Laws in General.

The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness."[2] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

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.




A differing analysis on the origin of this phrase was provided in his (award winning) book “INVENTING AMERICA Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence”, where historian Garry Wills argues [final paragraph, part two]:

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government. But to understand why he considered the pursuit of that happiness an unalienable right, we must look to another aspect of Enlightenment thought - to the science of morality.

Wills addresses the “the science of morality” in part three (regarding “the pursuit of happiness”, eminently in chapters 16-18).

Wills states, “If he [Jefferson] meant to signal dependence on Locke in his Declaration, he chose an odd way of doing it when he omitted the central concept of Locke in its most expected place.” – by substituting “the pursuit of happiness” for “property”. Wills further suggests, “… we should turn to the principal delineator of unalienable rights in Jefferson’s intellectual milieu – to Francis Hutcheson.”

Of Hutcheson, Wills states, “No one did more in the eighteenth century to encourage the measuring of public happiness than did Francis Hutcheson, with his 1725 formula for ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number.’” But Wills also points out that Locke himself used the phrase “pursuit of happiness” conspicuously, and that there was significant agreement by these two men: both saw it as a “constant determination”.

Wills here suggests this contribution from Adam Ferguson:

If, in reality, courage and a heart devoted to the good of mankind are the constituents of human felicity, the kindness which is done infers a happiness in the person from whom it proceeds, not in him on whom it is bestowed; and the greatest good which men possessed of fortitude and generosity can procure to their fellow creatures is a participation of this happy character. If this be the good of the individual, it is likewise that of mankind; and virtue no longer imposes a task by which we are obliged to bestow upon others that good from which we ourselves refrain; but supposes, in the highest degree, as possessed by ourselves, that state of felicity which we are required to promote in the world (Civil Society, 99-100).

Closing for Wills, and his understanding of what Jefferson meant by “the pursuit of happiness”, Wills states:

Within its original rich context, the pursuit of happiness is a phenomenon both obvious and paradoxical. It supplies us with the ground of human right and the goal of human virtue. It is the basic drive of the self, and the only means given for transcending the self.

[edit] Worldwide influence
This tripartite motto is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.[3]

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan, and in President Ho Chi Minh's 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[edit] References
1.^ Locke, John (1690). Two Treatises of Government (10th edition). Project Gutenberg. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
2.^ Franklin, Benjamin (2006). Mark Skousen. ed. Completed Autobiography. Regnery Publishing. pp. 413. ISBN 0895260336.
3.^ Dyck, Rand (2000). Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (3rd edition). Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-0176167929.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness"
Categories: United States Declaration of Independence | Phrases | Human rights

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Natural rights" are esoterics concepts that are not really relevant.

The only thing that is relevant, is the law, which are the social constructs that we agree to live under.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

So, what rights of yours have been infringed upon by the big, bad government?

You again confuse Property with Real Estate, and further confuse a Persons Right to Own Property with One's ability to attain it. Get Your act together. Either You understand Unalienable Right or it is Your loss. The sum of Your Life or Mine is More than the Sum of Laws, I feel sorry for You if it was anything less. You have no clue as to the depth of My View of this Country, and I find You highly insulting and limited. You either are incapable of comprehension, or brainwashed on the issue, or skimmed over the content and missed the point. How much is Your Education costing You? Turn off the TV and the MP3 and pay more attention to the basics. Please Never teach American History.

 

[Darkwind]

As opposed to ditto-heads?

You guys had complete control for six years.

You fucked it up.

You have little room to complain at this point and time.

But you are still constitutionally allowed to do so.

Guess what asswipe! You don't get to tell me if I can complain or not. I'm gonna bitch a blue streak for as long as you asswipes are in DC fucking it up x3.

Yeah, and I'll continue to point out how badly you, and the rest of your Ditto-headed cohorts fucked the country up when you had complete control for six years.

Thanks for all the useless wars.

You guys were awesome.

Every once in a while, you actually post something right and I think to Myself that maybe your not so bad. But then you revert and post this kind of drivel.

In case you missed it, and I know you didn't because I was over on that forum as well as you were, those six years when the Republicans had full control happened to have been when the economy was going great guns, jobs were increasing and we were winning the war on terror. The only real problem was the spending and that was out of control. Then came the Democrats.....And we know how well that went.

So, no matter how pinkish your sky gets, enjoy your little rants and bouts of fantasy.

 

[geauxtohell]

Privacy may not be recognized by Government, that does not invalidate it as a Natural Right. Reflect on Conscience and Tell Me that You have No Right to Privacy. I'm not saying that it is not conditional, or limited by circumstance, both are debatable, I'm saying that there are Clearly circumstances where it is Violated beyond dispute.

Why or how would You get the Idea that I would even suggest that Lock's Principle was anything other than "Life, Liberty, and Property"?

My understanding of Jefferson's "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" being implemented, a French adaptation, I believe came from a book I studied, which I will check into and get back to You on.

Wiki tells it a little different.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a famous phrase. For other uses, see The Pursuit of Happiness.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.

[edit] Origin and phrasing
Some believe that the famous phrase is based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1] Others believe that the phrase comes from Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. See the Introduction, Section 2, of the Nature of Laws in General.

The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness."[2] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

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.




A differing analysis on the origin of this phrase was provided in his (award winning) book “INVENTING AMERICA Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence”, where historian Garry Wills argues [final paragraph, part two]:

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government. But to understand why he considered the pursuit of that happiness an unalienable right, we must look to another aspect of Enlightenment thought - to the science of morality.

Wills addresses the “the science of morality” in part three (regarding “the pursuit of happiness”, eminently in chapters 16-18).

Wills states, “If he [Jefferson] meant to signal dependence on Locke in his Declaration, he chose an odd way of doing it when he omitted the central concept of Locke in its most expected place.” – by substituting “the pursuit of happiness” for “property”. Wills further suggests, “… we should turn to the principal delineator of unalienable rights in Jefferson’s intellectual milieu – to Francis Hutcheson.”

Of Hutcheson, Wills states, “No one did more in the eighteenth century to encourage the measuring of public happiness than did Francis Hutcheson, with his 1725 formula for ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number.’” But Wills also points out that Locke himself used the phrase “pursuit of happiness” conspicuously, and that there was significant agreement by these two men: both saw it as a “constant determination”.

Wills here suggests this contribution from Adam Ferguson:

If, in reality, courage and a heart devoted to the good of mankind are the constituents of human felicity, the kindness which is done infers a happiness in the person from whom it proceeds, not in him on whom it is bestowed; and the greatest good which men possessed of fortitude and generosity can procure to their fellow creatures is a participation of this happy character. If this be the good of the individual, it is likewise that of mankind; and virtue no longer imposes a task by which we are obliged to bestow upon others that good from which we ourselves refrain; but supposes, in the highest degree, as possessed by ourselves, that state of felicity which we are required to promote in the world (Civil Society, 99-100).

Closing for Wills, and his understanding of what Jefferson meant by “the pursuit of happiness”, Wills states:

Within its original rich context, the pursuit of happiness is a phenomenon both obvious and paradoxical. It supplies us with the ground of human right and the goal of human virtue. It is the basic drive of the self, and the only means given for transcending the self.

[edit] Worldwide influence
This tripartite motto is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.[3]

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan, and in President Ho Chi Minh's 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[edit] References
1.^ Locke, John (1690). Two Treatises of Government (10th edition). Project Gutenberg. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
2.^ Franklin, Benjamin (2006). Mark Skousen. ed. Completed Autobiography. Regnery Publishing. pp. 413. ISBN 0895260336.
3.^ Dyck, Rand (2000). Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (3rd edition). Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-0176167929.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness"
Categories: United States Declaration of Independence | Phrases | Human rights

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Natural rights" are esoterics concepts that are not really relevant.

The only thing that is relevant, is the law, which are the social constructs that we agree to live under.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

So, what rights of yours have been infringed upon by the big, bad government?

You again confuse Property with Real Estate, and further confuse a Persons Right to Own Property with One's ability to attain it. Get Your act together. Either You understand Unalienable Right or it is Your loss. The sum of Your Life or Mine is More than the Sum of Laws, I feel sorry for You if it was anything less. You have no clue as to the depth of My View of this Country, and I find You highly insulting and limited. You either are incapable of comprehension, or brainwashed on the issue, or skimmed over the content and missed the point. How much is Your Education costing You? Turn off the TV and the MP3 and pay more attention to the basics. Please Never teach American History.

And I thought we were having a rather nice dialogue.....

But I can see why you'd want to strike the white banner.

I am not in school to be a teacher.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Im am really so embarrassed,

About your contribution on this thread? You should be.

No, that you call yourself an America and are so ignorant. Its shameful.

 

[Intense]

"Natural rights" are esoterics concepts that are not really relevant.

The only thing that is relevant, is the law, which are the social constructs that we agree to live under.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

So, what rights of yours have been infringed upon by the big, bad government?

You again confuse Property with Real Estate, and further confuse a Persons Right to Own Property with One's ability to attain it. Get Your act together. Either You understand Unalienable Right or it is Your loss. The sum of Your Life or Mine is More than the Sum of Laws, I feel sorry for You if it was anything less. You have no clue as to the depth of My View of this Country, and I find You highly insulting and limited. You either are incapable of comprehension, or brainwashed on the issue, or skimmed over the content and missed the point. How much is Your Education costing You? Turn off the TV and the MP3 and pay more attention to the basics. Please Never teach American History.

And I thought we were having a rather nice dialogue.....

But I can see why you'd want to strike the white banner.

I am not in school to be a teacher.

The dialog had it's good points, there is no white banner, its good You aren't interested in teaching. Work on that reading comprehension deficit, and You're set, almost.

This statement is beyond absurd.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

 

[Missourian]

Locke was far from a conservative.

Are you going to claim Voltaire too?

Does it lead to more personal freedom and liberty or repudiation of personal liberty?
There is nothing the left does that leads to personal liberty In my lifetime that I recall.

What gift cards and welfare?
No, just another control scheme .

Yeah, that damn civil rights act was just a big personal liberty grab.

I mean, whites had to actually share water fountains with blacks!

It was Democrats OPPOSED to the Civil Rights Act.

Republicans overwhelmingly SUPPORTED it.

HOUSE DEBATE and PASSAGE

The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964.

Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34;

Democrats supported it 152-96.

It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.

A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success.

This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

<SNIP>

THE SENATE DEBATE

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue.

Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill.

In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes.

By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

The Republican pro-civil rights forces were blessed with gifted leadership. Although Senate minority whip Thomas Kuchel initially managed the party's forces, it increasingly became clear to Democrats, Republicans, the press, civil rights groups, and the White House that Everett McKinley Dirksen was the key man in the entire civil rights legislative effort.

CongressLink: [Congress: The Basics - Lawmaking] Civil Rights: Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
------------------------------------------

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against).

All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent).

Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.

Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act - December 1999

​

 

[geauxtohell]

]
The dialog had it's good points, there is no white banner, its good You aren't interested in teaching. Work on that reading comprehension deficit, and You're set, almost.

What I find funny is that you assumed you were going to tell me something novel.

Did you think I had never heard of Locke?

This statement is beyond absurd.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

I can't think of a very distinct group of people living in America who the founding fathers didn't think had a right to property. They weren't allowed to vote either. Though 3/5ths of them were counted as one person for census purposes.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

]
The dialog had it's good points, there is no white banner, its good You aren't interested in teaching. Work on that reading comprehension deficit, and You're set, almost.

What I find funny is that you assumed you were going to tell me something novel.

Did you think I had never heard of Locke?

This statement is beyond absurd.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

I can't think of a very distinct group of people living in America who the founding fathers didn't think had a right to property. They weren't allowed to vote either. Though 3/5ths of them were counted as one person for census purposes.

The simple fact is the only way to have a chance to end slavery was to count slaves that way, other wise the souths representative power would have made it impossible to achieve in any timeline.

 

[Intense]

]
The dialog had it's good points, there is no white banner, its good You aren't interested in teaching. Work on that reading comprehension deficit, and You're set, almost.

What I find funny is that you assumed you were going to tell me something novel.

Did you think I had never heard of Locke?

This statement is beyond absurd.

In that regard, your view for this country has never been a reality. I have pointed out that "property" was purposefully excluded from the Declaration of Independence (itself a non-binding document) because the founding fathers didn't believe that everyone was entitled to "property".

I can't think of a very distinct group of people living in America who the founding fathers didn't think had a right to property. They weren't allowed to vote either. Though 3/5ths of them were counted as one person for census purposes.

What I think is that Your perception of Locke and American History is out of context and Jaded. You are Still arguing a false premise that confuses Private Property with Real Estate. Possessions are Private Property. Currency is Private Property.

To own Real Estate, One needed the Purchase price. It was not an entitlement, nor did the lack of Ownership deny One the Justice. Your Perception is Jaded and Biased. Your understanding of the 3/5th's for the Census is over simplified and out of context, again Jaded.

 

[geauxtohell]

The simple fact is the only way to have a chance to end slavery was to count slaves that way, other wise the souths representative power would have made it impossible to achieve in any timeline.

I am well aware of that. The issue at hand here is why the founding fathers would not adapt Locke's mantra of "life, liberty, and property". The view held by historians is that it was not their belief that every man was entitled to property.

I also dispute your notion that the founding fathers were interested in ending slavery.

The larger point is that the country that Intense wants to revert to never really existed. It's an abstract idea.

I am also waiting to see how anyone's rights have been infringed upon by the government.

 

[geauxtohell]

What I think is that Your perception of Locke and American History is out of context and Jaded. You are Still arguing a false premise that confuses Private Property with Real Estate. Possessions are Private Property. Currency is Private Property.

Absurd. Currency is not private property or even property at all. If currency is private property, start destroying greenbacks in front of the treasury department and see what happens. If currency was private property, wages couldn't be garnished and items could not be repossessed. Every person is allowed to accumulate currency, but it is still under the control of the government. That's why there are all those funny numbers on it.

If this is going to digress into some sort of weird tax-protester digression, I'll know we have jumped the shark.

At any rate, it might be your belief that your money is "private property" but it is most certainly not the belief of our laws. Since we are a nation of laws, your opinion doesn't trump the law.

To own Real Estate, One needed the Purchase price. It was not an entitlement, nor did the lack of Ownership deny One the Justice. Your Perception is Jaded and Biased. Your understanding of the 3/5th's for the Census is over simplified and out of context, again Jaded.

You keep dodging the very plain fact by calling me "jaded". Your position is that we should return our country to the "Lockian" perspective. My point is that it never existed to begin with. Again, the fact is (which historians agree with) is that our founding fathers did not believe everyone was entitled to property.

Your silly insults about my inability to comprehend the issue are absurd, especially when you keep deflecting away from my basic points. You have said nothing that I haven't grasped, I have just pointed out that your logic and beliefs are flawed in the context of history.

You don't fight well on your heels.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wow, are they dumb. I bet they couldn't even understand your post, "I see a slight willingness on the right to call a pout the anti constitutionist".
So clear, so concise, mindful of word salad, don't ya think?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The simple fact is the only way to have a chance to end slavery was to count slaves that way, other wise the souths representative power would have made it impossible to achieve in any timeline.

I am well aware of that. The issue at hand here is why the founding fathers would not adapt Locke's mantra of "life, liberty, and property". The view held by historians is that it was not their belief that every man was entitled to property.

I also dispute your notion that the founding fathers were interested in ending slavery.

The larger point is that the country that Intense wants to revert to never really existed. It's an abstract idea.

I am also waiting to see how anyone's rights have been infringed upon by the government.

I posted a list of how, you dismissed it with a shrug.
The Kabuki dance is over.
You are fact proofed.