bprice@bmcg.UUCP (08/19/83)
Yesterday, I posted a rather ill-tempered article taking to task the
misunderstanding that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" denotes a
list of alternatives. Now that I have calmed down, I would like to retract
portions of yesterday's article: in particular, the babbling about 'and' vs
'or' and the misuse of the word 'totalitarian'.
----------------------------------------------------
There has been some discussion recently, brought on by the observation that
'Liberty' (as defined) is the necessary and sufficient basis for legislation.
This observation was followed, from several sources, by assertions tantamount
to the statement that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" phrase from
the Declaration of Independence is a list of alternatives in order of
precedence.
That interpretation of the fundamental philosophy of this country is clearly
erroneous, when examined in context:
"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,--"
Or, interpreted into a more germane dialect:
1. These are our axioms.
2. The property of being human does not imply an ordering among humans,
suitable for any purposes of government.
3. There is a body of "Rights" inherent in the property of being human.
4. This body of "Rights" cannot be separated from humanness, nor can the
members of this body be separated from each other.
5. This body contains at least these members:
a. Life
b. Liberty
c. The pursuit of happiness; i.e., the use of one's life to the attainment
of one's goals.
6. "Government" exists solely to allow the responsible exercise of each and
every one of these rights by each and every one of those governed.
7. All powers of government are derivative from this indivisible body of
"Rights"; any other powers assumed by government are improper.
Jefferson's version, as amended and approved by the drafting committee, the
congress, and the scribe who produced the engrossed copy, is far more elegant
and inspiring than my modern interpretation. It is quite a pity that those who
profess to follow Jefferson's philosophy and call themselves 'Democrats' are the
most flagrant opponents of the meaning he so eloquently wrote. I speak in
particular of those who, like Kennedy and O'Neil (sp?), are so vehement in their
insistence that the taxpayer have the least claim to his income.
It is heartening, though, that the Objectivists and Libertarians are so actively
and successfully promoting the Jeffersonian ideals that the "Jeffersonians"
have, to their shame, abandoned.
As a side point: "endowed by their Creator" means "Godgiven" iff "Creator"
is taken to denote "God". The same phrase means "natural" if "Creator" means
"Nature." (Are you there, trc?) In other words, the meaning is invariant over
any creationist/evolutionist difference. I believe it is true that the
"Founding Fathers" were not in agreement on religion.
Also to the side: 'unalienable,' according to Webster's 2nd, denotes that
which can neither be taken nor given away.
--Bill Price {philabs!sdcrdcf ucbvax!sdcsvax}!bmcg!bprice