Many years ago a little document called The Declaration of Independence was written. Inside of this document was a small passage:
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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Life, Liberty and Happiness - doesn't sound too hard to maintain does it? In fact it looks pretty simple. Many years ago it was.
I'm not the first guy in the world to take notice of the happenings of these three words. In fact, several other bloggers have written at great length about it. N.Z. Bear, Common Dreams, Spare Change, Getting Elected Blogline, Dust in the Light, Meyerweb, MVRWC, RealFake, Democratic Wings, The Fat Guy, Laugh at Liberals, Freespace and others have all written about it. Heck, there's even a blog with the name LiLpoH (abbreviated out). For many it is a piece of history that should exact an effect in every life as an American.
Over time this cornerstone on which the United States of America was founded on has slowly been eroded from the hearts and minds of Americans. Today there are just too many caveats to the statement. It appears that over time we have lost our way. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems when you subject it to the scrutiny of the law.
For words so impacting on our society you could imagine that these words are written in several documents that have guided this country. That's where you'd be wrong. Both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the documents that make up our laws make no mention of the phrase. The closest we can come is section one of the XIV amendment in the bill of rights:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Okay, that's close to what we're looking for; Life, Liberty and Property; but it's not the whole deal. Happiness doesn't seem to play into law.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
1 - Steve S
source
Noun 1. right to the pursuit of happiness - the right to try to find happiness - human right - (law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)
I put in bold the facets in which pursuit of happiness is usually brought up in a court of law, that I (a non-lawyer) am aware of.
For example stigmatizing and condemning and ostracizing, on a societal level, a large group of people really inflicts on their right to happiness. On an individual level, big f*cking woo.
And note that the freedom of thought that the pursuit of happiness provides includes the right to be a bigot, the right to be stupid, the right to have a faith or to not want to be subject to any faith, etc. THIS is what the Pursuit of Happiness is about, not vices like prostitution or gambling.
It makes them uncomfortable for some reason as as such people try to turn the tables by banning religion, just like people try to get of lust, vindictiveness and malice.
This isn't a comparable analogy. Lust, vndictiveness and malice are internal thoughts that one side wants to ban. Nobody wants to ban the internal thought of religion, what they want banned are the external prostelizing and evangelicalism. People outside the faith are being subjected to the faith.
So only one side wants to ban internal thought, the other side wants to ban external action which always results in oppression and ostracization.
2 - Jeremy
Wouldn't lust be on the same level in speech as religion by someone stating, "look at that chick over there man! Don't you just want to tag that @$$?"
Isn't the violence of a horror movie part of the pleasured derived from malice?
Ever thought eny of those chick flicks were cool because they really got the guy in the end? Coldn't that be described as vindictiveness in the same light as holiness?
Just an observation, but did you just try to explain how list, vindictiveness and malice are better than holiness? Maybe I'm mistaken...nevermind. I'm sure it's purely unintentional.
3 - Steve S
Just an observation, but did you just try to explain how list, vindictiveness and malice are better than holiness? Maybe I'm mistaken...nevermind. I'm sure it's purely unintentional.
If you are asking me, no I'm not syaing they are better than holiness but then again prostelizing and evangelicism are not holy.
4 - Temple Stark
Complex and interesting. Great thoughts. Thanks Jeremy.
5 - gonzo marx
good Topic..very worthy of some Discussion..
( and yes, the "Patriot" Act, {well, acting like "patriots" at least} scares the hell out of me as well)
Life
simplicity itself, established by towns and states...from the moment the doc sez "it's a gender!" and puts the lil foot print on the birth certificate until the time another medical person saz "Elvis has left the building" and signs date and time on the death certificate...the Time between is yoru life Folks...enjoy it
Liberty
the freedom to do as you Will, as long as it does not infringe on the Rights of others...and if you choose to do so, you have the Responsibility of answering for it to the Rule of Law (laws of men here folks, important point)
the pursuit of Happiness
pursuit is the active Symbol here, kiddies..no one is saying you have the Right to be "Happy"...just that you have the Right to pursue it, utilizing the Liberty of your free Will, during your Life...as long as you don't infringe on others and within the Rule of Law
now, a lot of the things you touched on involved only hurting yourself...silly, but you have the Right to do so as long as you don't infringe...or suffer the Consequences
why so much bullshit spewed about in our Government?..my hypothesis has a bit to do with a "professional" political class, mostly lawyers, looking for something to do to justify getting re-elected so they can remain "professional" political people, and thus further their "careers"
objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear...
Excelsior!
6 - Dave Nalle
The happiness bit wasn't supposed to be in there originally, but got added in. When Jefferson wrote the draft it read 'property' instead of 'pursuit of happiness', but Adams and Franklin who were overseeing the project decided to change the wording in order to avoid any suggestion that the new country would be guaranteeing free land ownership to anyone who immigrated. Ironically, of course, the country did offer free land to anyone for the next hundred years or so. And of course all of the other founding documents include the reference to property which is one of the three cornerstones along with life and liberty of our fundamental natural rights.
Dave
7 - Steve S
in spite of capitalism and the free market, we find home ownership is out of the reach of millions.
property which is one of the three cornerstones along with life and liberty of our fundamental natural rights.
how can we say property is a cornerstone of our fundamental natural right and then charge half a million for a large closet with a cot?
8 - Dave Nalle
The RIGHT to own property is not the same as the ability to acquire that property, Steve. Nothing in our founding documents guarantees a certain minimum income.
>>how can we say property is a cornerstone of our fundamental natural right and then charge half a million for a large closet with a cot?<<
I don't know what planet you're living on, but down the street from me you can get a decent 1200sqft 3/2 with a yard and a 2 car garrage, within easy commuting distance of Austin for $100,000 with no money down, no credit check and fairly reasonable loan terms. It's not a luxury home by any means and it's not in a swank neighborhood, but it's one that any family with an average American income of $37,000 a year can afford.
On a 15 year note, with nothing down and 5.5% interest (and on a 15 year you could get lower) that's only $1100 a month with insurance and taxes, and that's within the 30% limit for housing recommended by HUD. A 30 year note would bring the payment to under $900.
Dave
9 - Jeremy
then charge half a million for a large closet with a cot?
So Steve,
When did you come by my house? I'd have baked a cake.
That property deal is one of the great rumors of our founding documents. Since the Declaration of Independence was written first I would be more likely to believe that Adams and Franklin suggested he take happiness out and put property in for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Knowing just a tad (and I do mean just a tad, nothing more) about Adams and Franklin they sound to me more apt to have suggested it that way.
Adams considered himself more of a royal than a politician and property was frequently on his mind. It was a point of status and meant such in that day and age.
Franklin, if I remember correctly, was a lot less of the jovial fellow many make him out to be and more of the shrewd and ruthless businessman. He too would be thinking property much more than happiness. For these two men property WAS happiness.
Of course, I could be completely wrong in this presumption and you could be completely right. The reports of the day have long been embattled and many political papers of the day have tried to change the way things read.
For example, Jefferson never had a black mistress OR a mallatto child from her. It was completely made up by the anti-jefferson (pro-adams) newspaper of the day.
10 - Dave Nalle
Wow Jeremy, you ARE a font of misinformation.
>>That property deal is one of the great rumors of our founding documents. Since the Declaration of Independence was written first I would be more likely to believe that Adams and Franklin suggested he take happiness out and put property in for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.<<
It's not a rumor, it's history. Jefferson later admitted to it being in his original draft. Plus Jefferson didn't write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, just the Declaration. Madison wrote the other two with much editorial input because Jefferson wasn't there, being ambassador to France at the time.
>> For example, Jefferson never had a black mistress OR a mallatto child from her. It was completely made up by the anti-jefferson (pro-adams) newspaper of the day.<<
While they did make many things up, this one is true. The descendents of his mulatto (proper spelling) children were DNA tested to prove it a couple of years ago and the Jefferson family has acknowledged their descent from Jefferson.
Dave
11 - Jeremy
Actually, it was proven to be either his brother or cousin, not Jefferson himself I can't remember which. I've got the book and the passage for evidence at home. I'll dig it up and drop it here for you perusal. I've been going through a book about the presidential elections and this book has been a wealth of knowledge to me.
...gimmie a few hours. I get off work in an hour and a half and I should be home a half hour to an hour after that. Probably there in about three hours.
...I think the paper that ran it was The Intelligencer...can't remember.
12 - Dave Nalle
Last I heard they couldn't differentiate for sure between Jefferson's DNA and that of his brother who might also be the progenitor of that line, and the Jefferson family accepted the Hemmings line's claim that Jefferson was their ancestor. Given that Sally Hemmings told her kids that Thomas Jefferson, not Field Jefferson was their father, I would think the benefit of the doubt would go to that answer.
Dave
13 - Jeremy
Hemmings? I don't think that was the name I remember. I thought it was something else. That could be an entirely different deal. I'll have to check in a couple of hours.
14 - Jeremy
Okay, here goes: Sally Hemmings or "Black Sal" as the Federalists called her was charged as Jefferson's concubine of which he was supposed to have had several children by. Jefferson remained silen about the matter on the theory that "the man who fears no truth has nothing to fear from lies." He did, though, indirectly deny the Hemings story in letters to freinds adn it seems likely it was his nephews, Peter and Samuel Carr, who were really involved with her.
(Paraphrased from: Presidential Campaigns by Paul F. Boller, JR. Pg, 19-20. ISBN:0195034201)
I was actually mixing up two separate events though. I comingled Jefferson and Jackson. Here's the Jackson:
He was reduced to tears when he came across the following statement in newspapers opposing his election: "General Jackson's mother was a COMMON PROSTITUTE, brought to this country by the British soldiers. She married a MULATTO MAN, with whom she had several children, of which number General JACKSON IS ONE!!!"
Same book pg. 46
The ISBN I gave is for the old book. (Signed hardback published in 1984) The new one is: 0195167163
Jackson was not a Mullato man, nor was his mother a prostitute. The point I was trying to make about the papers of the day embellishing on the truth. I do take your word on the happiness vs. property thing though. It's still a fun debating point.
In the end I must bow to the master. Your American history Kung-Fu is greater than mine and I must submit.
15 - Todd Fox
The FBI just conducted a poll of Americans in support of the Patriot Act, which covers all three (life, lib, happiness)