the Declaration of Independence didn’t declare that we had the right to life, liberty...?

ife, liberty, and the all-expenses-paid pursuit of happiness.
I'm pretty sure the declaration of independance doesnt have those words.

2 Replies

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

ife, liberty, and the all-expenses-paid pursuit of happiness.
I'm pretty sure the declaration of independance doesnt have those words.

But it seems to me that we all have the right to life, liberty!

How to understand this?

0 Replies

It's the

Quote:

all-expenses-paid

part that the author added on his own. In this case, it means people should not expect the government to pay for extensive medical expenses that will not do much good because the patient will probably die anyway. The US healthcare system does not work, and one of the problems is younger people get little help and older people have a government program that helps too much. However, older people want the option of having expensive procedures, even if they waste money, because everyone is afraid to die.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

If we were a democracy there would be no government in any sense apart from the people... Now certainly, if the object is to replace all people in production with machinery and to cut profit margins to the extreme by selling into a dying market, then universal health care will be impossible to maintain as will all the trappings of a civilized society such a our infrastructure... The success of capitalism spread across the world amounts to the failure of democracy since economic equality is essential to social equality and neither is possible in the modern world... There are two types of people in this world: Masters, and slaves and any slave who believes it possible to be happy, or to have life or liberty as a right is suffering from delusions... Capitalism from the start demanded a free people meaning a people from any moral protections... When no Feudal relationship protected the peasants from exploitation their demise was complete... It did not matter that only time and property separated the exploited from the exploiter... All that mattered was that law and religion supported the enslavement of the poor by the rich... In America for one brief moment the promise was made that we would have democracy, but what the declaration does not say: The Pursuit of Property, which was the current thought, the constitution does say... It is to Jefferson's credit that he saw the true goal through the immediate desire for wealth... But; it was known then and it is true today, that the rich man's gain is the poor man's loss... They own the government... They own the commonwealth... We are their slaves... We cannot expect to be treated humanely by them only because we presume it is moral... It is they who will determine what is moral.. We will only decide if we are to do and die as we are instructed as slaves have always done, or if one spark of freedom still lies lit within our souls...

1 Reply

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

ife, liberty, and the all-expenses-paid pursuit of happiness.
I'm pretty sure the declaration of independance doesnt have those words.

If we are the government as we would be in a democracy, then we shall have what we decide we can afford out of our own labor... Since others have expropriated our labor value, and they own the government as well, then we shall not have any more happiness than a government of strangers will allow us...We are aliens here, sorjounors... Our inalienable rights have been made alienable so they may be sold for our soup... Give up any claim to freedom... Curse every day and wish it away until your last... Bend your back to your labors, and dare not to see the sun... You are a tool, and tools have no rights...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Pssst Fido, the poster is studying english and asking for a simple clarification of a confusing editorial statement. It's not meant to be a political rant thread.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Green Witch wrote:

Pssst Fido, the poster is studying english and asking for a simple clarification of a confusing editorial statement. It's not meant to be a political rant thread.

It seems proper to make it one.

Fido is showing me how to use Engish in reality. Very Happy

1 Reply

Two puzzles to be solved:

1) When no Feudal relationship protected the peasants from exploitation their demise was complete...

"Feudal relationship protected the peasants from exploitation?" But the impression that I got when reading history is that "Feudal relationship delivered the peasants to exploitation by feudal lords (who squeezed the peasants with heavy taxes!)."

2)...or if one spark of freedom still lies lit within our souls...

If it does, we will have to struggle for the freedom? Eh, I haven't understood the consistency of your logic. Please explain a bit.

1 Reply

Quote:

I haven't understood the consistency of your logic.

There is no logic.
Fido twists words to suit his own peculiar lunatic fringe philosophy.

2 Replies

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

Quote:
I haven't understood the consistency of your logic.

There is no logic.
Fido twists words to suit his own peculiar lunatic fringe philosophy.

However, I'd like thank him for helping understand English usage.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Two puzzles to be solved:

1) When no Feudal relationship protected the peasants from exploitation their demise was complete...

"Feudal relationship protected the peasants from exploitation?" But the impression that I got when reading history is that "Feudal relationship delivered the peasants to exploitation by feudal lords (who squeezed the peasants with heavy taxes!)."

2)...or if one spark of freedom still lies lit within our souls...

If it does, we will have to struggle for the freedom? Eh, I haven't understood the consistency of your logic. Please explain a bit.

Feudalism is a form of relationship, as all economies are, and it cannot be judged entirely by what it bacame... Many of the rights enjoyed by a feudal lord became our own, and many of the words of feudalism entered our language... It was relatively more easy for the land (law wards) lords, and their rights were at one time nearly equal to their liege lord... If the lord decided to sleep with his vassel's wife, the vassel might de-fy him, which mean to have his fife without fee...But as in China where the peasants could be said to have bottom rights, and their master had top rights, no one under feudalism could be said to own the land, for the land was, like the rights we have by the Declaration- Inalienable... Because of the influence of the Church in Europe, the peasants and all had about a hundred feast days where no one worked, and in that sense, at least, Feudalism was efficient, because they consumed all the produced and wasted little... We cannot today with all the advances of technology say we have a hundred days off a year, and we cannot beg the end of our labors with darkness since we have lights...

You might consider that what most helped Feudalism to end, -and remember, Napoleon struggled against it even in his day- was not capitalism alone which existed side by side with Feudalism for many years... In many places, Feudalism accomidated capitalism by making land alienable, and making serfs little more than slaves... But the condition of serfs actually aided capitalism becase the most hardy and intelligent simply ran from their feudal obligations, and if able to bear arms, and if they could stay gone a year, they were welcomed in the cities... The most singular event in human history was not directly the result of progress, or human activity... The black death cleared the land of people who left most of their capital behind, and that capital soon ended up in the hands of those who could best use it, and there it fueled the Renaissance... A lot of technological advances that were coming together through the middle ages from gears to grindstones to clocks, to horse collars, spelled the end of feudalism... Guns, steel, gunpowder, and shipping and commerce all made elite armed forces obsolete....Law too, helped, and broke the individual totally off from his community, and left him naked to exploitation...

1 Reply

Jesus Christ . . . here is the relevant passage of the Declaration of Independence:

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 author has inserted "and the all-expenses-paid" into the the passage about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I can undestand why the Australian wouldn't trip to that, but it's pathetic that the Americans didn't. And no, Oristar, you are not learning real English when you read the drivel Fido commonly posts.

EDIT: OK, i see that GW noted that the phrase was an insertoin. Oristar, the author is taking a passage familiar to almost all Americans (those who didn't sleep through elementary school and high school, at least) and using it to introduce his or her screed. It's a common enough technique that i'm sure you're familiar with by now.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jesus Christ . . . here is the relevant passage of the Declaration of Independence:

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 author has inserted "and the all-expenses-paid" into the the passage about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I can undestand why the Australian wouldn't trip to that, but it's pathetic that the Americans didn't. And no, Oristar, you are not learning real English when you read the drivel Fido commonly posts.

EDIT: OK, i see that GW noted that the phrase was an insertoin. Oristar, the author is taking a passage familiar to almost all Americans (those who didn't sleep through elementary school and high school, at least) and using it to introduce his or her screed. It's a common enough technique that i'm sure you're familiar with by now.

I'm familiar with the content in bold. The nytimes author seems trying to show his humor by inserting "the all-expenses-paid pursuit ( of happiness)". Because what DI said is all being actually limited (life is limited, liberty is limited and of course so is happiness - so the author pointed out his keynote: our spending on health care must be limited.).

Well, further understanding is still required.

1 Reply

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

Quote:
I haven't understood the consistency of your logic.

There is no logic.
Fido twists words to suit his own peculiar lunatic fringe philosophy.

I am not twisting words, but I may occasionally tickle some meaning out of them... The point was not made all that well.... We say we have rights without saying clearly what they are, and the reason for that is simple... Rights are moral forms, like God, or existence that cannot be defined... But if we claim rights and incorporate them into our social forms like government they no longer exist mearly are moral forms, but take on a physical quality, expressed in our relationships... It is clear that Jefferson and company had some understanding of forms since he talks about them in the declaration of independence.... And it is important to remember when our revolution occured, what was going on and had gone on in Europe... This was the first time ideas alone motivated a great world change... It is important to realize that God- except as a metaphysical abstraction was left out of the statement... It may be because our equality was only predicated on metaphysics that no one really accepted it; and people have been free to work against it, but none the less, the declaration said we have those rights, though the common saying of the day was, instead of happiness: the pursuit of property... Why did Jefferson say what he said, and what relationship does life and liberty have to happiness, and is it a goal government should concern itself, with and with the defense of???...

Those people in this land who run down socialism run down democracy... We clearly have much socialism at every level of society... The more the commonwealth is privatized the more poverty is made common... The question is: when the country as a physical object has become the property of a few, can the country as an idea exist for the people??? I do not think the idea of nation stands up to the reality of the country as property... Democracy is the socialism of rights because no person alone is ever in a position to defend his own rights, and if forced to stand up as an individual against a corporation, for example, the individual fails always...If the people cannot see well enough through their forms to realize that they must offer a common defense of their rights they simply will lose them...

Democracy is political equality, but in this land property has the right, or rather, gives to its owners the right to influence government over the heads of the people... What this means, in reality, is that those with more rights to begin with are ending with all the rights just as a slight over valuing of the right of kings in time made them monarchs... If we are to have true political equality we need to have true economic equality...

Rights, which are powers people possess, are not properties as one philosopher had it, but are the key to all property since those with less rights have less property, and then, no property, and finally no rights either because as history has shown, even inalienable property can be made alienable and sold under duress and taken... Where property is a right, a right is a property... We have to draw the line...

We have to spell out the relationship of the individual to his society, and say that what stands from our earliest Supreme Court findings is that We, the people, stand behind all titles and are the ultimate grantor of property rights, and if they do not serve this people, then it is not the people that should serve the right, but the people who should judge that the right is only a privilage and should be abridged.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

oristarA wrote:

Two puzzles to be solved:

1) When no Feudal relationship protected the peasants from exploitation their demise was complete...

"Feudal relationship protected the peasants from exploitation?" But the impression that I got when reading history is that "Feudal relationship delivered the peasants to exploitation by feudal lords (who squeezed the peasants with heavy taxes!)."

2)...or if one spark of freedom still lies lit within our souls...

If it does, we will have to struggle for the freedom? Eh, I haven't understood the consistency of your logic. Please explain a bit.

Feudalism is a form of relationship, as all economies are, and it cannot be judged entirely by what it bacame... Many of the rights enjoyed by a feudal lord became our own, and many of the words of feudalism entered our language... It was relatively more easy for the land (law wards) lords, and their rights were at one time nearly equal to their liege lord... If the lord decided to sleep with his vassel's wife, the vassel might de-fy him, which mean to have his fife without fee...But as in China where the peasants could be said to have bottom rights, and their master had top rights, no one under feudalism could be said to own the land, for the land was, like the rights we have by the Declaration- Inalienable... Because of the influence of the Church in Europe, the peasants and all had about a hundred feast days where no one worked, and in that sense, at least, Feudalism was efficient, because they consumed all the produced and wasted little... We cannot today with all the advances of technology say we have a hundred days off a year, and we cannot beg the end of our labors with darkness since we have lights...

You might consider that what most helped Feudalism to end, -and remember, Napoleon struggled against it even in his day- was not capitalism alone which existed side by side with Feudalism for many years... In many places, Feudalism accomidated capitalism by making land alienable, and making serfs little more than slaves... But the condition of serfs actually aided capitalism becase the most hardy and intelligent simply ran from their feudal obligations, and if able to bear arms, and if they could stay gone a year, they were welcomed in the cities... The most singular event in human history was not directly the result of progress, or human activity... The black death cleared the land of people who left most of their capital behind, and that capital soon ended up in the hands of those who could best use it, and there it fueled the Renaissance... A lot of technological advances that were coming together through the middle ages from gears to grindstones to clocks, to horse collars, spelled the end of feudalism... Guns, steel, gunpowder, and shipping and commerce all made elite armed forces obsolete....Law too, helped, and broke the individual totally off from his community, and left him naked to exploitation...

The most impressive in my eye is "The black death cleared the land of people who left most of their capital behind, and that capital soon ended up in the hands of those who could best use it." I think I might read further about something like "the historical meaning of the Black Death."

New puzzles appear:

1) which mean to have his fife without fee? What is fife? The lord of Fief? "Have his fife" means "kick his landlord's butt without feeling guilty?"

2) if able to bear arms = if able to be a warrior?

3) A lot of technological advances that were coming together through the middle ages from gears to grindstones to clocks, to horse collars, spelled the end of feudalism...

What is gear? A primordial tool? More primitive than grindstone? But horse collar is older than clocks, no doubt about that. So the order you spelled here is a mess. Am I on the right track?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jesus Christ . . . here is the relevant passage of the Declaration of Independence:

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 author has inserted "and the all-expenses-paid" into the the passage about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I can undestand why the Australian wouldn't trip to that, but it's pathetic that the Americans didn't. And no, Oristar, you are not learning real English when you read the drivel Fido commonly posts.

EDIT: OK, i see that GW noted that the phrase was an insertoin. Oristar, the author is taking a passage familiar to almost all Americans (those who didn't sleep through elementary school and high school, at least) and using it to introduce his or her screed. It's a common enough technique that i'm sure you're familiar with by now.

The whole thing is nonsense unless we are ourselves willing to give it meaning... If you do not understand how rights stand in support of each other, that the equality premised in the declaration must be made real for rights to be a reality, then you are a lost cause... Don't be an efin idiot... You can occasionally make an educated statement... Keep it that way... What the statement, with the addition says is that people do not have any more rights than they can afford to buy, even though much of the medical treatment came out of medical research paid for by the people... If we all bought it, we should all enjoy it, and it should all go into supporting our lives and happiness...

What the rich say in looking at the poor is that their lives are not worth living because they would not by choice trade lives with them... In fact, ecah probably enjoys and suffers his life about equally, and at the point of death even a rich person would trade their dwindling lives for the lives of a poor man... We have already bought better care as a country and often, even the poor enjoy it... The question of whether we will have equal access will always be answered in the negative by those who might have to sacrifice some wealth to have it happen... It may be that we are having what we can afford... More likely, the rich are enjoying far more than they deserve, and as a consequence the average person does not have near the minimum all should have...

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Hi OristarA, your question is very simple. I don't understand why people here are being so difficult.

The real phrase (as you know) is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The implication is that the writer agrees with this version.

The writer changed it to "life, liberty and the all expense paid pursuit of happiness." He does this to make the comparison with the original. His point is that the Declaration of Independence doesn't promise that (the government) will pay for people's happiness.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

A horse collar is not older than the clock... But as you may recognize, geared clocks are relatively new, but have the terminolgy of their parts from older water clocks....

A lord in a possition to defy his lord had to pay him no fee for the grant of land, his fife.... We still use many of these terms in real estate law...

What we consider an endangered right to bear arms used to be the obligation of every free male... If you could not defend yourself you could not defend your city, and were never welcomed...

People had the grind (mill) stone, but it was worked on a totally different premise in most places... Rome used a stone that was turned by hand or mule power, but most were two flat stones with the top having a post or handle which was used to rock the stone rather than turn it... Circular motion is apparently foreign to people, though we now learn it early on... Even now it represents a sort of mile stone for children, when they learn to peddle a bike; and some say that is the soonest you can toilet train, as well, since it represents a certain level of abstract thinking uncommon in the very young....

There are no books, so far as I am aware, on the historical meaning of the black death... Look at a time line, and consider the upheaval it cost across Europe, and its affect on wages for workers and feudalism in general, and its relation in time to the Renaissance, and to the discovery of the America's... It deserves a book, but I have never heard of anyone connecting the dots as I have... Today, wars do the same thing by making more resources available to science and individuals alike... It kills a few but helps all the rest to a momentary sort of happiness...

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Hi OristarA, your question is very simple. I don't understand why people here are being so difficult.

The real phrase (as you know) is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The implication is that the writer agrees with this version.

The writer changed it to "life, liberty and the all expense paid pursuit of happiness." He does this to make the comparison with the original. His point is that the Declaration of Independence doesn't promise that (the government) will pay for people's happiness.

If we are a democracy we are the government... We can have all we can afford... We are the law, etc. and etc.

1 Reply

the Declaration of Independence didn’t declare that we had the right to life, liberty...?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know