Sorry about the mishap. I was wrong
If your research is correct, that is.
ouch. Are you saying that you apologized without first looking at my links to the Princeton documents? Of course, the voters are counting on you, Con, to verify my research. LIkewise, if you choose to present any research, the voters may rely on me to challenge any observed problems with the documents cited.
My main point is that the "Declaration" and the thinkers of the time were influenced by John Locke, who famously created an older phrase of "life, liberty, and property."
A fair number of potential sources for inspiration have been identified, though there is considerable debate about the directness of Locke's influence. As often happens, Locke never quite said "life, liberty, property."
"In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate". In A Letter Concerning Toleration, he wrote that the magistrate's power was limited to preserving a person's "civil interest", which he described as "life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things". He declared in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding that "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness."[5]
The degree of influence is essentially untrackable because the question of the natural rights of all mankind was on the minds of most Americans and many Europeans at that time. There were many potential rights to consider and these debates had been going on long before the Revolution, were in fact the heart of the social revolution long underway.
Look at the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted on June 12, just weeks before Jefferson sat down to write the national version. Written by George Mason, that document declared:
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
This is a document that recognized the rights of Jefferson himself as a Virginian. Now look again at Jefferson's Rough Draft:
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive right inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness."
Doesn't this phrasing parallel the very current Virginia Declaration more than any of Locke's century-old phrases?
If there was any objection to inclusion of property as an inalienable right, the most likely source of contention was Benjamin Franklin. Franklin pointed out that it wouldn't do for government to tax an inalienable right, and the United States was definitely going to want to tax property.
So it is conceivable that at some point, there was an important shift made either by Jefferson or Congress as a body to replace "property" with 'the pursuit of happiness," even if it took place before pen and parchment ever actually met, it was most likely a conscious decision on somebody's part. That it is not recorded is evident from your research (although the Internet might be wrong).
Isn't it interesting that Locke defined PROPERTY in the Two Treatises of Government as a person's "life, liberty, and estate?" If Jefferson was referencing Locke here, he may have omitted property as redundant.
Let us make a supposition, then, for the sake of our argument, that such a change was made.
OK. But I'll ask the voters to note the lack of research. That takes Solution #1 off the table.
Second, several times you say things like
Pro endorses each draft as well as the result.
or
an offer to oppose one entire draft
I am not endorsing any specific draft in any entirety.
Fine, that takes Solutions #2 and #3 off the table.
The entire point of the debate, made clear from the beginning, is to argue whether property or pursuit of happiness should be endorsed. Ergo, I am solely endorsing the particular part that holds "the pursuit of Happiness" as an unalienable right.
The point was neither clear at the beginning nor is it now. You are Pro "the Pursuit of Happiness as an inalienable right. " but you instigated as CON. What are you contradicting? What am I defending?
Con may have simply sought to oppose the notion of owning and protecting one's own property as a natural or unalienable right.
I don't oppose people having a right to property, but believe that the right of "the pursuit of Happiness" is superior.
But look, if we are using your Lockean Assumption (that is, that Locke was the primary inspiration with property excised in favor of happiness), and we know that Locke defined "property" as "life, liberty, and estate." Then property must be the superior right, just as the right to life and the right to liberty come before the right to happiness. What good is happiness without life? What chance at happiness without liberty?
Ok, on to my actual claim.
The Pursuit of Happiness Includes Property.
OK, so in the last paragraph you said that the entire point of the debate is to argue whether property or pursuit of happiness should be endorsed. Now you have a new claim that the pursuit of happiness includes property. Never mind that you have again asserted the Pro position, the juxtaposition of these two theses reduces the debate to truism.
That is:
x includes all of y.
Which is greater: x or y?
I believe that x is greater than y because x includes all of y.
The Pursuit of Happiness includes Property.
Which is superior: Happiness or Property?
I endorse Happiness as superior to Property because Happiness includes Property.
In order to pursue happiness, you must, of course, have means to do so. Property would be included in this.
I think the greatest argument against this claim is that your property can be taken from you.
My life can also be taken from me but that is a violation of my right to life, not abnegation. Not much of a counter if you ask me. What about an argument that happiness in no way depends on property?
Children own no property but they are often happy. Hunter/Gatherers owned little to nothing but some studies suggest that they were happier without.
A 1960s study found the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert of Namibia work only about 15 hours each week acquiring food and then another 15 to
20 hours on domestic chores. The rest of the time they could relax and
focus on family, friends and hobbies.
Everything in our lives is kind of future-oriented. For example, we might get a college degree so we can get a job, so that we can get a pension. For farmers it was the same way. They planted seeds for the harvest and to store.
But for hunter-gatherers, everything was present-oriented. All their effort was focused on meeting an immediate need.
They were absolutely confident that they would be able to get food from their environment when they needed it. So they didn't waste time storing or growing food. This lifestyle created a very different perspective on time.
People never wasted time imagining different futures for themselves or indeed for anybody else.
Everything we do now is rooted in this constant and enduring change, or our history. We look at ourselves as being part of our history, or this trajectory through time.
The hunter-gatherers just didn't bother locating themselves in history because stuff around them was pretty much always the same. It was unchanging.
Yes, there might be different trees sprouting up year after year. Or things in the environment change from season to season. But there was a systemic continuity to everything.
I think that it's a wonderful, extraordinary thing. I think it's something we can never get back — this different way of thinking about something as fundamental as time.
It manifests in very small ways. For example, I would ask them what their great grandfather's name was and some people would just say, "I don't know." They just simply didn't care. Everything was so present-focused. [6]
Certainly, George Carlin would argue that property inhibits happiness:
My counter to this is that it usually occurs as a result of debt, where you have previously signed that you will pay debts owed when they are called due, or else get a fine. In extreme cases, your property can be taken by the bank as compensation. However, seeing as you agreed to the conditions when you took out a loan, etc., it is your own voluntary consent.
Which suggests a pretty narrow definition of property. How are you defining property, anyway?
Here at the end of Round 2, I think it would be fair to say we have something like three potential theses from CON.
The first thesis is the original, "should we have kept the original draft? I am Con. " We've agreed that we can only suppose that the word "property" was used in one, undefined draft and so this essentially means, "Should property have been retained instead of pursuit of happiness"
Certainly, an argument can be made that pursuit of happiness is too vague a phrase and by that vagueness has been weak in the support of human rights. A right to property would have been a powerful statement, there in the enlightened first paragraphs of our Declaration: we all have some right to property. If "the right to property" had become defined as an inalienable right how much less likely would homelessness be? How much more might we discern a certain right to a share of the franchise? I think an alternate reality America with with a well-established Right to Property could well be a much nicer place.
The second thesis is:"The entire point of the debate, made clear from the beginning, is to argue whether property or pursuit of happiness should be endorsed."
Third Thesis: "on to my actual claim The Pursuit of Happiness Includes Property.
Taken together, these arguments amount to a truism formulated in the second round.
That is:
x includes all of y.
Which is greater: x or y?
I believe that x is greater than y because x includes all of y.
The Pursuit of Happiness includes Property.
Which is superior: Happiness or Property?
I endorse Happiness as superior to Property because Happiness includes Property.
Oh ok cool lol
That’s my pick for this week’s “Supadudz Memorial Profile Pic Pick O’ the Week,” https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1700 - an activity for which I serve as host and usually sole participant. This week’s theme is AVENGERS.
Wong is the bomb.com
Statement 1 (made much later than when the debate was created): I also have no idea how my position ended up being Con. I'm pretty sure that I selected Pro.
Statement 2 (made while creating the debate): I am Con.
I love the profile pic, btw.
As if you've never made the same mistake. You call yourself the wrong position all the time.
"I also have no idea how my position ended up being Con. I'm pretty sure that I selected Pro."
Why did you write "I am Con." in the debate's description? LOL!
thx, Ram. I suppose I would grudgingly agree to such a request under these circumstances.
Just for your benefit - moderators may be able to delete the debate if both sides are in agreement to do so.
I won't forget to bring this up again, but I don't want to swamp myself like RM did. I'll probably limit myself to debating 5 at a time.
I also have no idea how my position ended up being Con. I'm pretty sure that I selected Pro.
I know we skip rounds like that on DDO. I think on this website it's not a good idea though.(voting wise) Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
You have twelve hours before you forfeit.
Don't forget.