Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9528)	2/4/2017 6:19:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354357

>>>"My immediate reaction is to scratch my head re the Enlightenment and property rights. My interest in this issue is the notion that so many have that equality for blacks, women, gays, etc. represents an extension of constitutional rights either by judicial fiat or the generosity of nice, white, male Christians rather than a right that they already had but that had been denied from the beginning by the unenlightened (common parlance) dominant majority."<<< I also assumed it had to do with equality of rights for a while but we have other codes that support that issue. We don't need the happiness code at all to justify our movement in that direction. I long wondered why such a vague inalienable right was codified. It seemed completely vague and so malleable as to be subject to semantic satiation, meaninglessly occupying a space in the trinity of inalienable rights. My first thought is huh, that can't be right. There is no right to happiness because it can't be guaranteed or once claimed, protected. However the text means that we can pursue happiness without the interference of the government. But hold on, that depends on what an individual desires to satisfy the happiness need, again being so saturated with interpretation as to lose meaning. You might be happier if your brother in law stopped making you miserable but the government interferes by putting limits on how you can stop him. You can't beat the crap out of your brother in law or kill him without having your over all happiness destroyed by the government. Likewise, there are limits on just about everything we do in the pursuit of a more joyous life. That being the case I figured the idea of 'Happiness' must have meant something else or more. Even when I look at long scholarly treatments I walk away scratching my head. Most address the concepts of joy, fulfillment, virtuous action etc. which would be easy to deal with in the moral sense, otherwise very slippery when you attempt to hitch a chain of concrete rules to them. That is when I decided to look directly into the source, Enlightenment Philosophy. There is the over riding theme which stretches back through the history of human philosophy on government. That is, the government should be primarily concerned with encouraging and protecting the happiness of it's people. That part of the definition includes all those abstract ideas that can only be realized as "I know it when I see it." The enlightenment philosophy of John Locke was given credit posthumously for creating the radical revolutionary movement of the United States. And the authors of the Declaration and Constitution gave him credit for the verbiage "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Along with the other more abstract concepts, Locke insisted pursuit of happiness meant individual possessions (property) and efforts to build riches should not be interfered with by the government. Thus my question.