Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
In an original draft of the Declaration of Independence, rather than saying "the Pursuit of Happiness," Americans were proposed to have the unalienable right to "Property" alongside Life and Liberty. My question is, do you believe that we should have kept the original draft? I am Con.
"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; " 
"We hold these Truths to be self evident; that all Men are created equal and independent; that from that equal Creation they derive Rights inherent and unalienable; among which are the Preservation of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;" 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent & inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" 
"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. " 
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." 
Pro endorses each draft as well as the result.
an offer to oppose one entire draft
Con may have simply sought to oppose the notion of owning and protecting one's own property as a natural or unalienable right.
Sorry about the mishap. I was wrong
If your research is correct, that is.
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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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).
Let us make a supposition, then, for the sake of our argument, that such a change was made.
Second, several times you say things likePro endorses each draft as well as the result.oran offer to oppose one entire draftI am not endorsing any specific draft in any entirety.
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.
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.
Ok, on to my actual claim.The Pursuit of 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.
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. 
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.
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.
I would rather that no one voted since we kinda never debated the topic I wanted, but feel free to vote as you wish.