The question should be, why do Democrats hate the Declaration of Independence?
The answer being, of course, because it mentions the Creator as the source of all rights. To exclude the Creator from the discussion by definition removes the basis for all rights.
Aren’t strawmen fun?
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, I apologize. When you said:
and
and, why can’t we
I just went and assumed I could define my pursuit of happiness my own way. I had no idea your definition or moral behavior excluded civic duties (failure to pay taxes or maybe even mandated military service is leeching). I guess that overrides the way I wished to define it. Now I understand. Your interpretation of civic duty doesn’t count as a qualifier, but Bork’s and Buchanan’s do.
On what page in either Coercing Virtue or Slouching Towards Gomorrah did Bork say “the pursuit of Happiness… should be ignored”
Where’s that mirror smilie?
Come on guys, all jesting aside, a number of conservative writers have piled on the whole pursuit of happiness thing as being an anathema to the stability of society.
It’s ain’t no strawman. Some conservatives really and truly hate that some people define happiness in ways they find morally objectionable, whether or not there is any evidence (other than Old Testament tales of God-vengeance) the behavior they object to causes any real harm. I haven’t seen a single liberal author rail against that line of the DoI the way some conservatives have (noted in my OP). I haven’t seen a single liberal judge rail against the terror of our immoral freedoms the way Scalia did regarding regarding legalizing sodomy.
These conservatives think the US is going to fall apart in its moral turpitude because some people pursue their happiness in ways that, while harming no one, they find immoral. And they have ranted thus repeatedly, and there seems so be a general outcry among conservatives that “libertinism” and sexual immorality and so forth are going to doom our country. Was it Buchanan or Robertson who suggested that 09/11 was the direct result of teachin evolution, abortion, gay sex, promiscuity, and drug use, such that God “no longer protects out country.” People listen to that crap. Rhetoric along similar lines (albeit usually less directly offensive) is abundant; rhetoric defending our freedoms to debase ourselves is largely absent.
It isn’t a strawman.
My OP subject line was intended as parody. I apologize to those who didn’t get that. I also apologize to those who didn’t get the lighthearted tone I intended to create in my OP.
FOR THE LAST TIME. My point was never to suggest the DoI had (or should have) the force the law. Also note that I already accepted that attempts to limit happiness-pusrsuit are found on both sides, left and right. Presently it’s more of an issue with the right because THEY are in power!! … and probably will be for some time.
I just want to know–really and truly–what dopers have to say about the many conservatives who rail against that ideal of pursuing happiness (a God-given right, according to the DoI) with such vitriol.
And, whether it is a generally accepted interpretation that “Happiness” in the DoI means “Property.”
And lastly, will our country really go to “Hell in a handbasket” if gay people are allowed to marry, if we go on teaching evolution in schools, if people continue enjoying violent video games, if young adults continue having sex outside marriage, etc., etc. Are we doomed by our freedoms? What is the real danger?
[summary]
Nit-picking legalistic arguments about pursuing happiness are not germane here, because as any nimrod knows, the DoI does not have any legal authority.
It does, however present certain ideals, ideals which I thought we treasured in this country.
It turns out that some noisy conservatives (among others) find the whole “pursuit of happiness” line to be extremely problematic and want to explain it away. Some go as far to suggest that holding to that ideal with any real commitment will doom our country to destruction. Whether they themselves truly believe this is uncertain, but it sure gets a lot of people worked up, and rhetoric along these lines is frighteningly common (Coulter’s books ARE bestsellers, after all).
What do you all think about this? Does it bother anybody besides me, that an ideal presently in one of our beloved founding documents is so constantly besmirched? Do you agree with what conservatives say is a problem with letting people pursue happiness?
Within reasonable standards (your pursuit happiness shouldn’t directly interfer with that of someone else, or something along those lines) why can’t we celebrate that ideal, even if it means tolerating someone else’s bahvior we otherwise find objectionable?
No, I have no interest in arguing about what those reasonable standards might be. People like Bork want to toss out the whole notion that allowing the indvidual pursuit of happiness is an ideal at all. That is my concern.
I’m bowing out of the discussion to lurk, because I’ve grown tired of the personal attacks on me I’ve seen in this discussion and do not wish to encourage them further. But I am interested in what you all have to say.
This is a touchy issue. Let’s be civil, in this forum at least.
The right to the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ was an important statement, because up until that time, people were seen as being tools of the government. The King was the divine ruler, and the purpose of the lives of the citizenry was to enhance the glory of the King, or the country. Or in Star Trek Geek-Speak, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”.
The U.S. was founded on a very different, radical notion - that government existed to protect the rights of individuals to go about their own business and live their own lives and pursue their OWN happiness. The needs of the many NEVER outweigh the rights of the one.
Conservatives are the ones who still defend this principle today. It is the liberals who talk about the common good, about taxing people to pay for increasing social benefits. Socialism is the principle that everyone must work together for the good of society, that the needs of the poor outweigh the rights of individuals to live their own lives, to ‘pursue happiness’.
The Liberals want to add a caveat, “You have the right to pursue SOME happiness, but we’ll decide when you’ve got enough of it, at which point we’l take the rest, thank you.”
It is a strawman.
A strawman is an argument that you have constructed yourself so you can beat up on it. You keep telling us what “conservatives” think and feel, but you haven’t provided any actual conservatives who have said that they’ve thought or felt those things. The only argument that you’re responding to is the one you’ve crafted and put in other people’s mouths.
So until you provide an argument made by a conservative that says that they hate the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence, then this is a prime example of an argument that you’ve tailor-made so you can beat up on it.
Not to mention the fact parody threads don’t usually show up in GD.
Q: Can you show me an example of your light-hearted tone? I re-read everything here that you spewed here and can’t spot anything light-hearted. Come to think of it, who’s the subject of your parody? Right-wing pundits, Thomas Jefferson or the GOP?
Yawn… another Friday night without a date. Nothing’s on TV, just tired Christmas shows and lousy re-runs . Oh well, maybe I’ll just sit here and drink a bit and then go straight to bed…Yawn.
Wait! I know! I’ll just scroll back again and again to Sam Stone’s clear and brilliant post about the pursuit of happiness. His wise understanding of the wily ways of liberals will entertain me and keep me smiling until its time to go nighty-night.
Wow! Sam sure precluded further discussion in this thread with his exigent summary.
Thanks for the night, Sam! Merry Christmas! 
Uh huh. :dubious:
Silly, that’s Republicans, not conservatives.
I was not raised to believe that political thinkers did not exist on planet Earth until it was graced with the presence of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Judge Roy Bean and Twain * et al *. I have, therefore, a less romantic view of the whole business.
The American Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document, pure and simple. Full of arrogant and bombastic twaddle, signifying nothing, and not worthy of discussion.
The “Federalist Papers” amounted to no more than an argument between a small group of arrogant elitists who were trying to work out how to best make sure that the “People” and what the writers considered to be the people’s uncontrollable passions, would have no significant influence on the government or any power to hold the government accountable in any meaningful manner, should the revolution succeed.
In this task, they succeeded most admirably, through that over-rated document known as the American Constitution.
What is the end result?
Simply an elective dictatorship, in which the “People” have no meaningful representation in the political process or the power to influence events than the subjects of an old style absolute monarchy.
Even the Constitution has become a “mere nose of wax” (to use Thomas Jefferson’s felicitous phrase) under the auspices of the US Supreme Court which can interpret that document in any way it pleases (emanations and penumbras etc).
I am not in any way suggesting that the American political system is inferior to any of the other elective dictatorships on this planet, which number only about 30 or 40. I simply suggest that it is not now, and never has been, better than any of them, or more responsive to the will of the “People”.
As you can see, I don’t hate the American Constitution, I simply despise it (as I do the Hammurabic Code, which seems to be a price control list, for the most part)
Don’t forget the interstices!
Alan Owes Bess says:
Bolding mine.
Whatever the Federalist Papers may or may not have amounted to, the “revolution” was a “done deal”, signed, sealed and delivered, before the Constitutional Convention was called in response to several glaring failures of the Articles of Confederation, the first American constitution.
Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, and the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783, making it official.
The Costitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia in May, 1787, and the new Constitution (with Bill of Rights included) wasn’t ratified until May 29 of 1790. It was during this Convention-to-Ratification period that the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in defense of a stronger “federal” power.
It was the oft-overlooked Anti Federalist Papers which argued for less federal power, and guarantees of certain “fundamental liberties and inalienable rights” against federal intrusion which spurred the creation of the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
So by a generous estimate (Yorktown), the revolution had been cinched for over 8 1/2 years before our Constitution was ratified; by a conservative estimate (Treaty of Paris), it had been over for the better part of 7 years.
Given your lack of knowledge of basic historical facts concerning the founding and beginnings of the United States, what makes you think or feel anyone should give the rest of your drivel any more attention than I already have?
You appear to have misconstrued what I said.
It is obvious that the articles written in the Federalist Papers could hardly have been freely written and broadcast before the Revolutionary War, as distinct from the American Revolution itself, which did not reach its conclusion until about 1790.
PS. My use of the term “broadcast” above does not imply that I think radio was invented then.