...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

[shiva2999]

The pursuit of happiness...

It's in the Declaration.

Do you know who was responsible for it being there?

Do you know what was meant by it?

What does it mean to you?

Is it the overriding goal of America?

To provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people?

[Lucidvizion]

To me it means that individuals should have the freedom do what makes them happy, as long as it's not interfering with anybody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Happiness is not something that can be provided because happiness is a mindset. Happiness is also a choice. Many people just consciously or unconsciously choose to be unhappy, or allow their basic animal emotions to dictate how they approach their lives.

My quick 2 cents.

[JLB]

To provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people?

no.
it's on an individual basis the rights of the individual to pursue.
how would you know what makes people happy?

[anEinherjer]

To provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people?

That right there shows the unsolvable difference between you and guys like me and Pete.

[shiva2999]

That right there shows the unsolvable difference between you and guys like me and Pete.

That's right.

I know stuff and you don't.

Why not answer the first two questions?

[sukie]

Wasn't it almost plagerized from George Mason?

[sukie]

The meaning of it is up to individual interpretation.

To me it means you are allowed to live whilst endeavoring freely to be happy as you wish
without the infringement of others ( or infringing on others) attempting to do the same.

[sukie]

It is not the overriding goal of America but it should be the goal of Americans.

[anEinherjer]

I like a guy from Canada telling us what the overriding goal of America is, or should be. No, I'm not going to answer your questions, Shiva, they're silly. I'll let Pete dig it up, he likes that kind of thing.

[sukie]

American should not provide anything other than the chance unimpeded.

[pmoon6]

That's right.

I know stuff and you don't.

Why not answer the first two questions?Are you happy?

[shiva2999]

I like a guy from Canada telling us what the overriding goal of America is, or should be. No, I'm not going to answer your questions, Shiva, they're silly. I'll let Pete dig it up, he likes that kind of thing.

Proudly ignorant.

A true American.

Does the name Jeremy Bentham ring a bell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), considered Jefferson's phrase to refer to one's economic vocation of choice rather than the more ephemeral search for emotional fulfillment, although one may be predicated on the other. Justice Miller wrote:

Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

[shiva2999]

Are you happy?

I don't worry about it.

Happiness is a by-product.

Virtue begets happiness.

Happiness does not beget virtue.

[sukie]

I'm happy

[shiva2999]

I'm happy

See?

[sukie]

See what? I answered your questions.

[shiva2999]

See what? I answered your questions.

No you didn't.

I didn't ask if you were happy.

[uppy]

I belive it was the of pursuit property then it was changed to happiness

[sukie]

No you didn't.

I didn't ask if you were happy.

I answered each one.

[shiva2999]

I belive it was the of pursuit property then it was changed to happiness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

Phrasing

The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". While Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions", Adam Smith coined the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". The expression "pursuit of happiness" was coined by Dr. Samuel Johnson in his 1759 novel Rasselas.

Written by Thomas Jefferson, the words in the Declaration were a departure from the orthodoxy of Locke and Smith. Locke's phrase was a list of property rights a government should guarantee its people; Jefferson's list, on the other hand, covers a much broader spectrum of rights, possibly including the guarantees of the Bill of Rights such as free speech and a fair trial. The change was not explained during Jefferson's life, so beyond this, one can only speculate about its meaning. This tripartite motto is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.[1]

The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan.

An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress.

[shiva2999]

I answered each one.

No you didn't.

You asked a question about the first and avoided the second.

Without understanding the first two, answers to the last two are somewhat, ahem, shallow.

[uppy]

Thanks for the link Shiva

[sukie]

Post 7, 8, & 10. I was wrong on question 1 with the Mason response.

[г]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w4gN9mwP8aA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w4gN9mwP8aA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[JLB]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mmNAB9WekwI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mmNAB9WekwI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[sukie]

Shiva... PM me the answers you were looking for so I can answer to your satisfaction, I'll copy and paste here, and then you can claim me as one of your saved like 35Pete.

[shiva2999]

Post 7, 8, & 10. I was wrong on question 1 with the Mason response.

In other words, you asked a question about 1 and never answered 2.

[shiva2999]

Shiva... PM me the answers you were looking for so I can answer to your satisfaction, I'll copy and paste here, and then you can claim me as one of your saved like 35Pete.

Hey, I gave you a hint.

Jeremy Bentham.

Epicurianism.

[C Darwin]

No taxation without representation!!!!!

[sukie]

Shiva #7 answers 2

[shiva2999]

Shiva #7 answers 2

No it doesn't, it answers #3.

[shiva2999]

No taxation without representation!!!!!

That's what I tell my wife.

No money until my opinion is taken into account.

She laughs and laughs and laughs....

[sukie]

Since what it means to me answers what is meant by it then yes I did answer it.

Driving under the influence means driving while you abilities are compromised by the presence of a substance that effects judgement and physical abilities...

To me it means...
Driving under the influence means driving while you abilities are compromised by the presence of a substance that effects judgement and physical abilities.

[JLB]

That's what I tell my wife.

No money until my opinion is taken into account.

She laughs and laughs and laughs....

so do we! :guy:

can your wife take your place here?:dunno:

[shiva2999]

Since what it means to me answers what is meant by it then yes I did answer it.


Sukie

Use your head.

Why would I ask in #3 what I already asked in #2?

The second question asked what the people that inserted the phrase into the Declaration meant by it.

[sukie]

And that is what it means to me.

[JLB]

no.
it's on an individual basis the rights of the individual to pursue.
how would you know what makes people happy?

still the best post.:D

[shiva2999]

And that is what it means to me.

Your answer to #3 is what it means to you.

So answer #1 and then tell me what it meant to them.

[35Pete]

Shiva. The central theme of the constitution is to limit the power of government. More than a hundred thousand words in the 80+ Federalist Papers support this fact.

Now, if the declaration was made to state that the American government's sole role was to ensure happiness then why create a subsequent document who's primary purpose is to protect the populace from government?

I mean, wouldn't the founders have laid out great latitude for the government to ensure happiness and act on behalf of the people to accomplish said goal?

I mean rather than a constraining and restrictive document they would have created an enabling one, correct? In order for the government to do whatever it took to take care of the people.

[sukie]

To The Framers it meant you are allowed to live whilst endeavoring freely to be happy as you wish
without the infringement of others ( or infringing on others) attempting to do the same.

inclusive of religion

[shiva2999]

To The Framers it meant you are allowed to live whilst endeavoring freely to be happy as you wish
without the infringement of others ( or infringing on others) attempting to do the same.

inclusive of religion

And you know this how?

[JLB]

And you know this how?

are you from Los Angeles?

[shiva2999]

Now, if the declaration was made to state that the American government's sole role was to ensure happiness then why create a subsequent document who's primary purpose is to protect the populace from government?


Good question.

Why do you think?

[sukie]

And you know this how?

No one knows it. There are no living witnesses. Anyone claiming to know intent truly is a member of the thought police.

[sukie]

Pete weren't the Federalist papers written to get NYers to ratify the constitution?

[shiva2999]

No one knows it. There are no living witnesses. Anyone claiming to know intent truly is a member of the thought police.

Don't be silly.

The phrase didn't arrive out of thin air.

There is a history.

Why not learn it?

Jeremy Bentham.

Epicurianism.

Utilitarianism.

[sukie]

So you know what they meant? You asked them?

[shiva2999]

So you know what they meant? You asked them?

I did some reading.

You could too.

[35Pete]

Good question.

Why do you think?

Because they genuinely feared concentration of power?

[shiva2999]

Because they genuinely feared concentration of power?

Or maybe they understood it as a balancing act.

How to give the government enough power to protect the powerless but not so much that unscrupulous individuals couldn't use it as a tool of oppression.

Government is like a gun.

In the hands of a responsible person, it is a useful tool.

In the hands of a criminal, it is a weapon.

[sukie]

They wanted the opposite of the English system

[Green Lantern]

The pursuit of happiness...

It's in the Declaration.

Do you know who was responsible for it being there?

Do you know what was meant by it?

What does it mean to you?

Is it the overriding goal of America?

To provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people?

...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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Government, according to the Declaration, does not PROVIDE happiness but rather secures the ability for men to pursue happiness.

[JLB]

...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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Government, according to the Declaration, does not PROVIDE happiness but rather secures the ability for men to pursue happiness.

check post #3.

thank you!!

[Green Lantern]

They wanted the opposite of the English system


How's that?

[JLB]

post #3 is the best.:D

[shiva2999]

...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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Government, according to the Declaration, does not PROVIDE happiness but rather secures the ability for men to pursue happiness.

You are quibbling about semantics.

Parsing the word provide. It has more than just the obvious meaning you know.

Pointing out that government can't provide an emotion is redundant.

[35Pete]

Or maybe they understood it as a balancing act.

How to give the government enough power to protect the powerless but not so much that unscrupulous individuals couldn't use it as a tool of oppression.

Government is like a gun.

In the hands of a responsible person, it is a useful tool.

In the hands of a criminal, it is a weapon.


Wow. I very much agree with the sentiment in bold. So then, why do we so strongly disagree on the role of gov't?

I think perhaps because I cannot trust that "good people" will be consistently placed into power. That I believe that government more often than not attracts megalomanical righteous personalities into it's ranks. People that believe that they are truly performing "good", public service as they like to say, and that their good deeds are so apparent (to them and their followers at least) that any dissent from endeavors of public good can only be rooted in selfish and ulterior motives, and must be suppressed for the good of all.

The founders also understood this clearly.

[Green Lantern]

You are quibbling about semantics.

Parsing the word provide. It has more than just the obvious meaning you know.

Pointing out that government can't provide an emotion is redundant.

That is not the meaning of my post. Nice argument though.

The government is to provide/secure the environment for people to pursue happiness. That is what I meant.

[shiva2999]

Wow. I very much agree with the sentiment in bold. So then, why do we so strongly disagree on the role of gov't?

I think perhaps because I cannot trust that "good people" will be consistently placed into power. That I believe that government more often than not attracts megalomanical righteous personalities into it's ranks. People that believe that they are truly performing "good", public service as they like to say, and that their good deeds are so apparent (to them and their followers at least) that any dissent from endeavors of public good can only be rooted in selfish and ulterior motives, and must be suppressed for the good of all.

The founders also understood this clearly.

But Pete, I'm sure the founders thought of themselves as "good people".

[shiva2999]

That is not the meaning of my post. Nice argument though.

The government is to provide/secure the environment for people to pursue happiness. That is what I meant.

That's what I meant too.

[Green Lantern]

That's what I meant too.

See how easy that was Sukie...

LOL.

[sukie]

See how easy that was Sukie...

LOL.

I wasn't answering correctly. I needed the preconceived answers first. My bad. LOL

[JLB]

See how easy that was Sukie...

LOL.

i said the same thing in post 3 but the thread has a life of its own.

[35Pete]

But Pete, I'm sure the founders thought of themselves as "good people".

They did an amazing thing Shiva. An act to be awed throughout the ages. They denied themselves power. They gave that to the people.

And in a little over 218 years Washington took it all back, and then some.

[sukie]

They took it back way before that.

[JLB]

They took it back way before that.

I think he meant bit by bit till now.

I was going to post exactly what you did.

[Green Lantern]

They did an amazing thing Shiva. An act to be awed throughout the ages. They denied themselves power. They gave that to the people.

And in a little over 218 years Washington took it all back, and then some.

Pete, THEY were the people. They took power for themselves.

Maybe you should stop gawping at them and realize anyone CAN do what they did.

[JLB]

Pete, THEY were the people. They took power for themselves.

Maybe you should stop gawping at them and realize anyone CAN do what they did.

They had no right to change anything.:D

[35Pete]

Pete, THEY were the people. They took power for themselves.

Maybe you should stop gawping at them and realize anyone CAN do what they did.

:rofl:

Holy shit. So then, the government IS the people?

You really believe that, don't you?

:rofl:

Jesus. I have been here 5 years and this takes the cake. Talk about delusional.

The government is engaged in a war in Iraq.
The government is engaged in spying on it's citizens.
The government is the people.

Therefore....

The people support the war in Iraq.
The people desire to be spied on.

Holy Jesus. I'm speechless.

[JLB]

:rofl:

Holy shit. So then, the government IS the people?

You really believe that, don't you?

:rofl:

Jesus. I have been here 5 years and this takes the cake. Talk about delusional.

see Aqua they had no ****ing right to amend or even give the women the vote or the right to an abortion they ****ed Utopia.:D

[shiva2999]

See how easy that was Sukie...

LOL.

My overall point being that the subject of happiness as a goal of human existence was of huge interest in the 18th century as up until then, most human lives were nasty, brutish and short.

But Bentham and then Mill blotted their copybooks when they took up the cause of happiness.

And Bentham, as I read it, was instrumental in the change in the Declaration from the Locke/Smith version..

The problem is, as I previously stated, that happiness is a subset of virtue.

The Canadians recognized the problem.

The phrase should be, "life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue (good government)"...

A virtuous man is always happy but a happy man isn't always virtuous.

It's very easy to ignore the caveat that you can't harm others.

I suspect the fact that TJ shut up about it till he died means he had some second thoughts too.

[Green Lantern]

:rofl:

Holy shit. So then, the government IS the people?

You really believe that, don't you?

:rofl:

Jesus. I have been here 5 years and this takes the cake. Talk about delusional.

The government is engaged in a war in Iraq.
The government is engaged in spying on it's citizens.
The government is the people.

Therefore....

The people support the war in Iraq.
The people desire to be spied on.

Holy Jesus. I'm speechless.

Pete, The government REPRESENTS the people.

The PEOPLE took power from England. The people then instituted a government.

You should know better than your above post.

[shiva2999]

:rofl:

Holy shit. So then, the government IS the people?

You really believe that, don't you?

:rofl:

Jesus. I have been here 5 years and this takes the cake. Talk about delusional.

The government is engaged in a war in Iraq.
The government is engaged in spying on it's citizens.
The government is the people.

Therefore....

The people support the war in Iraq.
The people desire to be spied on.

Holy Jesus. I'm speechless.

Pete

It's true.

Read what you wrote.

You guys may have sore ass holes now but you ASKED to be ****ed up the butt.

[JLB]

Pete, The government REPRESENTS the people.

The PEOPLE took power from England. The people then instituted a government.

You should know better than your above post.

Shocking what BW can do.:D