Actually, more specifically, why do they hate the following section of the DoI:
“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.”
The Right to the pursuit of Happiness (among other rights) is God-given, according to our nation’s oldest and arguably most beloved founding document. I’d read commentors, always on the right, who argue that this statement should be ignored (e.g. Robert Bork, in Slouching Toward Gomorrah, or that it really means “…Life, Liberty, and Property” (e.g. Pat Buchanan in The Death of the West.)
But right there, clear as day: “pursuit of Happiness.” No qualifiers there as to whether it’s ok to put a halt to someone else’s happiness because you think it is immoral.
Why do so many Republicans hate this line so much? What is it about allowing other people to pursue happiness in their own way (assuming that it does not directly impact someone else’s pursuit of happiness) that gets some folks’ undies in a bundle (Bork, Buchanan, Scalia, Robertson, O’Reilly, Bennett, etc.)?
Is there any real evidence that society will utterly fall apart into chaos if we continue to allow people to define happiness and its pursuit for themselves, even if we disagree about the morality of it all?
As I understand it, originally, ‘pursuit of happiness’ was not intended as meaning the sort of happiness you’re referring to.
As I understand it, which is admittedly very little, it originally was going to read ‘Life, Liberty, and Property’ but there was some people who didn’t like that, so they settled on ‘pursuit of happiness’ as a compromise that implied a right to try to acquire property, but not a right to property. Comments by someone with more historical knowledge would be appreciated.
I’m not sure how pursuing the type of happiness you seem to be talking about would be different than a right to Liberty. This apparent redundancy is evidence for the theory that ‘pursuit of happiness’ is a compromise on property.
Me, I’m all for the decriminalization of victimless ‘vice’ crimes (e.g. drugs, gambling, prostitution). But I also think it’s terribly naive to think that the Founding Fathers would have taken that position. The colonial period was probably more morally censorious than today.
But it’s not just right wingers who get upset at victimless activities. There are plenty of leftist puritans. Feminists who oppose pornography, social theorists who want to censor violent movies/games, etc etc. Nanny-staters who want to force people to wear helmets while riding motorcycles or bicylces, etc etc.
Come on now, it’s wrong to lump all liberals together, and the same goes for all conservatives. Just because somebody like Pat Buchanan is against something is no reason to assume all, or for that matter any other conservatives are. I don’t think Pat is any more of a “standard” conservative than Ann “frothing at the mouth” Coulter.
Let’s say for aguments sake I needed every dollar I made to pusue happiness in my own way.
Would you agree:
I had a right to evade the payment of taxes
or
Would you point out to me the Declaration of Independence isn’t a legal document and hence, no legals rights are enumerated in it?
Oh? What sort of happiness is it referring to, then? Has the meaning of the word ‘happiness’ changed greatly in 227 years?
[quote] As I understand it, which is admittedly very little, it originally was going to read ‘Life, Liberty, and Property’ but there was some people who didn’t like that, so they settled on ‘pursuit of happiness’ as a compromise that implied a right to try to acquire property, but not a right to property. Comments by someone with more historical knowledge would be appreciated.
Yes, that is Robert Bork’s argument, more or less. Is there really general agreement as to this intrepretation?
**
So, what in the text is called Liberty you are saying is rather more like the Happiness I originally mentioned.
Still the question remains, why do conservatives hate Liberty and Happiness so much for others, unless they can narrowly define it by what they think is good for society as a whole?
**
Was more “sin” being committed, or not?
**
Good point.
Maybe we need a term different than the common and vaguely applied labels of conservative/liberal.
Maybe the term we’re looking for is fascist. Sadly, there are fascists aplenty on both the right and left. It just happens that the right has all the power right now in the U.S.
Pursuing happiness is not upheld when it means trying to evade civic duty, such as by being a leech on society (enjoying society’s benefits with contributing to them).
**
:smack:
Who brought up legality, besides you?
I’m asking why conservatives loathe the ideals presented in the DoI.
I did not ask why the rights in the DoI don’t have the force of law.
What annoys me are Liberals who don’t realize that the other side feels Liberals hate the line “Life, LIberty, and Pursuit of Hapiness” because they support abortion and increasing the size of government.
No, what you’re doing is using rhetorical sophistry to conclude that conservatives loathe these ideals when they do no such thing.
No rational person would accept that a single person’s pursuit of happiness should override all of a society’s moral precepts. The name for what happens when you allow that to happen is “anarchy”. For example, right now, it would make me very, * very * happy to slap you upside the head with a trout. I think the people who would frown on my doing so could not be evenly divided into Liberals and Conservatives.
The real question is, at what point does a society’s charter to enforce a set of laws that allow people to live together in harmony conflict with an individual’s right to privacy and the pursuit of happiness? This is a very complicated issue littered with the baggage of other ethical systems (e.g. religious beliefs) that were heuristically patched together in the absence of a uniform judicial code.
Now you may argue that there are certain pursuits of happiness that are forbidden but nonetheless fail to impact society in any meaningful way. A sterling example of this would be the Texas vibrator case .
And, in fact, it’s hard to defend that spectacularly stupid intrusion of government into a person’s life. But you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that this particular ordinance was passed as part of a plot by conservatives to make people in Texas miserable in direct contravention of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Conservatives certainly like to have their fun just as much as the Liberals. In fact, I’m sure that there are more than a few Republican dildos in Texas.
I have to agree. I find the practise of using the (stupid) “Why does X hate Y?” rethoric repugnant. I’m up for bashing Republicans any day of the week (and twice on Thursdays), but statements like the OP topic is pretty much the anti-thesis to “Fighting Ignorance”.
Really, it would be nice to see debates started with a more factual premise, and less (stupid) rethoric vitrol, no matter which “side” starts them. Also, stupid thread like this makes it hard for the Liberals to whine about the Republicans and Bush doing it.
If you don’t want a “Why do Liberals hate America?” shooved down your throat, don’t start threads like these*.
I’m not saying it will stop those expressions but you will at least be able to take the high road.
[Hijack]
Because Libertarians hate all government. So why bother? Just kidding. BTW, which Libertarian candidate are you voting for?
[/Hijack]
I like to break this sentence down:
Life: We cannot be executed - or, atleast unjustly executed.
Liberty: We cannot be oppressed.
Pursuit Of Happiness: We cannot be prevented from pursuing what causes us individual happiness
It has always been the last part that has gotten people riled up. But there is a definite triangulation that is formed here. Each unalienable right goes only so far, until it threatens a right of another person.
Robbing banks and driving drunk may make you happy, but our government has decided that these actions may impede on someone else’s right to life or liberty.
But take this in context. The Founding Fathers were suffering from high taxes, and no representation. They were being robbed of two of these three rights. Also, back then, happiness only meant a plot of farmland to grow hemp, and a few chickens. Surely, I jest.
Again, it is unfair to take a few extremists that happen to have the same political affiliation, and then blame the whole political affiliation for their actions or words.
The extremists on the other side of the aisle happen to be running the Democratic party right now.
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that the line “life, liberty and property” is from John Locke, and the reason many say that “pursuit of happiness” means protection of property is because the entire phrase is merely a slight redaction of the Locke-ian ideal to which the Founding Fathers described. Locke is so over the founding documents of this country, that it may be him they’re referring to when the DoI says “Creator” and not Yahweh.
Of course, if someone has mentioned that, I feel most stupid right now, and should read closer.
Why do these liberals hate America loving Republicans?
Drivel drivel drivel.
I stayed out of the other one because it was oozing so much stupidity that I was afraid some of it would rub off on me. And what do you know, it did. I got so stupid that I opened this thread. And behold, even more stupid dreck.
So knorf, why do you hate freedom so much?
:rolleyes: :wally
Ah, another “have you stopped beating your wife” question. And I was just remarking how much we needed more threads like the “can you improve psychic abilities through practice?” post.
I’m of small-l libertarian bent myself, so I don’t think conservatives have a monopoly on hating Liberty ‘unless they can narrowly define it by what they think is good for society as a whole’ at all.
Leftists display quite a bit of hatred of economic Liberty. Or (cough McCain-Feingold) restricting political speech. Or speech-codes on campus. Or opposing school vouchers, which would would allow parents Liberty to educate their children in their family/cultural traditions.
What world do you live in, Knorf, that leftists don’t restrict restrict Liberty ‘unless they can narrowly define it by what they think is good for society as a whole’?
Before you start commenting on the speck in thy neighbor’s eye, remove the log from yours, knorf.
Darn, and I was all set to start a “Why do Republicans hate our freedoms?” thread, after hearing David Horowitz plug his new book on the radio earlier this evening…
