- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So he was compelled to use that line and not one of his own?Jefferson got the line he abused in the DOI from Mason. You like Haymarket need to learn your history.
Second, pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with happiness as in joy but the legal constructs to protect liberty which did include property. Do not waste my time speaking of things you don't understand and then act like you somehow win based on ignorance. I consider it rude.
In one breath you say there might be a better way to describe the concept and in the next you seem to negate such a possibility. Here you've turned the coin over instead of simply throwing it away. Regardless of how much you and your friends want to believe it, not everything should be reduced to property - especially people.
You have nothing to say hay? Don't worry, that is expected from you.
Oh - it was said loud and clear and by your reaction it hit right as it should have.
This is why would-be tyrants denigrate and ridicule the very notion of liberty. Their goal of controlling you is thwarted to the extent that their claim of ownership is seen as illegitimate.
They have no use for ethics, and mock all talk of principle as the domain of dilettantes. However, even a third grader can see them for what they are: thugs who rule by fear, compulsion, and brute force.
Jefferson got the line he abused in the DOI from Mason. You like Haymarket need to learn your history.
Second, pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with happiness as in joy but the legal constructs to protect liberty which did include property. Do not waste my time speaking of things you don't understand and then act like you somehow win based on ignorance. I consider it rude.
What did you say again??
I am not suggesting that people be reduced to property. I am suggesting that each person has an exclusive right to control his own person, from which it follows that no person should ever be the property of another.
I must congratulate you on getting the absolute maximum number of libertarian cliches into just these small number of lines. Well done!!!!
The thing that is really impressive is how over 200 posts do not seem to matter and the same statements of belief are simply repeated again and again and again like the real world never raised it ugly head into Wonderland. :roll:
Its really quite amazing!!!!
If you want to talk about ownership of bodies - or as you called them, "tangible aspects" - then there might be something to discuss. Otherwise it's crap.
I deleted my post, withdrawing my comments from discussion. Sorry I didn't do it fast enough ... :shrug:well, in practical terms, intangible aspects of people( thoughts, dreams, aspirations, ) cannot be owned by another, they can only be owned by the self.( until we find way to suck them out of people and take them over :lol
physical ownership, can, however, impact those intangible aspects in great ways.( great meaning "big", not "good")
i'm sorry... "it's crap" is not an argument...it's a judgement with no supporting argumentation.
That has a certain poetry to it!A majority of what we do in this life is for our bodies. We sleep, eat, pee/poop, hygiene, sex, play and then work for the rest. We are owned alright by the physical demands of survival.
That has a certain poetry to it!
Pursuit of Happiness was purposefully substituted because it's broad, and open to interpretation. One cannot say what he clearly means, since there is no clear definition of the term. Property could easily be included in "pursuit of happiness", as could a great multitude of things. However, Jefferson is a poor example of self ownership, since he himself was a slave owner. In one of his letters, he clearly recognizes that slavery is morally reprehensible, though he died a slave owner. His reasoning was that slavery allowed him the luxury of his intellectual pursuits, which is a pretty lame excuse in my opinion.It's interesting you mention Jefferson. Did you also take note that Locke used "Life, Liberty, and Property" in his Treatise but Jefferson used "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" when he penned the Declaration of Independence? Why do you suppose that is? If Jefferson felt so strongly about the subject then why replace that word? He could have simply added Pursuit of Happiness to the end of Locke's words - but he didn't. I've read several of the letters Jefferson wrote. He seems to have had a very different view on property than what many believe.
I deleted my post, withdrawing my comments from discussion. Sorry I didn't do it fast enough ... :shrug:
Pursuit of Happiness was purposefully substituted because it's broad, and open to interpretation. One cannot say what he clearly means, since there is no clear definition of the term. Property could easily be included in "pursuit of happiness", as could a great multitude of things. However, Jefferson is a poor example of self ownership, since he himself was a slave owner. In one of his letters, he clearly recognizes that slavery is morally reprehensible, though he died a slave owner. His reasoning was that slavery allowed him the luxury of his intellectual pursuits, which is a pretty lame excuse in my opinion.
So happiness had nothing to do with happiness. :roll:
And you have the nerve to talk about what others do not know. :shock:
Where did you get that idea? I'm always willing to read reliable information about the Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson.Pursuit of Happiness was purposefully substituted because it's broad, and open to interpretation. One cannot say what he clearly means, since there is no clear definition of the term.
I am aware of Jefferson's personal dilemma on the subject of slavery.Property could easily be included in "pursuit of happiness", as could a great multitude of things. However, Jefferson is a poor example of self ownership, since he himself was a slave owner. In one of his letters, he clearly recognizes that slavery is morally reprehensible, though he died a slave owner. His reasoning was that slavery allowed him the luxury of his intellectual pursuits, which is a pretty lame excuse in my opinion.
aye, even the "greats" are susceptible to great feats of mindboggling hypocrisy...
Its wonderful when you write the punch lines and it is yourself that is being punched.:lamo
you said:These two statements in the same post have a certain simplicity of beauty about them.
Of course, the silliness comes from the first statement.
Personal deduction. Because of their experience in dealing with Parliaments wonderful brand of legalism, it only makes sense that Jefferson would want to leave certain things as broad as possible. Jefferson may have also felt that it would have been in poor taste to entirely plagiarize Locke. I could be wrong.Where did you get that idea? I'm always willing to read reliable information about the Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson.
Just saying. I personally would have used Franklin on this topic over Jefferson. If not mistaken, he was one of the very few Founding Fathers that didn't own slaves. He was just as adamant, if not more than Jefferson, about personal freedom and liberties, as well. People overuse Jefferson. Great writer, great philosopher, but ultimately a hypocrite.I am aware of Jefferson's personal dilemma on the subject of slavery.
Ummm, if you look back through the thread I did NOT use Jefferson. Someone else quoted him as though he supported Locke 100% on this matter. I voiced the opinion that he probably didn't agree with Locke on the subject.Personal deduction. Because of their experience in dealing with Parliaments wonderful brand of legalism, it only makes sense that Jefferson would want to leave certain things as broad as possible. Jefferson may have also felt that it would have been in poor taste to entirely plagiarize Locke. I could be wrong.
Just saying. I personally would have used Franklin on this topic over Jefferson. If not mistaken, he was one of the very few Founding Fathers that didn't own slaves. He was just as adamant, if not more than Jefferson, about personal freedom and liberties, as well. People overuse Jefferson. Great writer, great philosopher, but ultimately a hypocrite.
One thing to be borne in mind is that classical liberal thought was developed in a time when the world was functionally infinite.
There was a "commons" from whence we all were entitled to take what we needed to live.
Now almost everything is "owned" by someone.
I can't just find some place in the wilderness and build a home and do some farming.
I have to pay.
If I "own" my life, why must someone pay in order for me to sleep at night without breaking the law?
We hear a lot from libertarians about not wanting to pay taxes to the government, but little about all the "life taxes" levied by owners of property.
Why, when the "commons" became impractical due to population, did we settle on "rents" as the solution.
That's what the feudal lords came up with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?