Extolling the virtues, and rightness of our now old hat, the Secular materialistic state of affairs that rule the world, it is praised with self-righteousness, like a sort of doctrine that like the famous phrase in our bill of rights allude:
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language.These three aspects are listed among the “unalienable rights” or sovereign rights of man.
A noble idea no doubt, however the angle attached to it is the word Property!
The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:
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.
Which means that a man dispossessed of the right to acquire property it is not free, this may be so, however the property attachment it is bothersome from an Ontological point of view because it makes liberty or freedom dependent on property, and how freedom can be so, if it requires such attachment?
The seventeenth-century cleric and philosopher Richard Cumberland wrote in 1672 that promoting the well-being of our fellow humans is essential to the “pursuit of our own happiness.” This was the original idea, but John Locke, in his 1689 “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” wrote that “Civil interest I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things…” Locke wrote in his 1693 Essay Concerning Human Understanding that “the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness.” Locke never associated natural right with happiness, but in 1693 Locke’s philosophical opponent Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made such an association in the introduction to his Codex Iuris Gentium. William Wollaston’s 1722 book The Religion of Nature Delineated.
As we can see this aggregate of: “Indolence of body; and the possession of outward things” is bothersome because delineate a course of materialistic satisfaction, in order to be happy, when we know this not to be true since happiness it is an inner state of the Soul, that doesn’t require such aggregates!
Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of “property” as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a “creature of society” and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily drafted by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:
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.
While I understand, and even appreciate your argument concerning the pernicious tendencies of Capitalism and the movement in our current culture toward a more materialist definition of happiness, I have two comments.
First, in the light of recent statements by representatives of the political right, where it was clearly stated that a portion of the population feels “entitled” to what I would call the fundemental requirements of life (i.e., “food, shelter, etc.”), there does seem to be direct connection between property and possessions and happiness. After all, how could an individual possible be happy without the simple ability to sustain life?
Secondly, I feel that you have, to some extent conflated the concept of Capitalism with Corporatism. This might seem to be merely a semantic distinction; however, I feel a few moments of reflection will allow one to decern this subtle distinction. In a very important way Corporatism is diametrically apposed to the fundemental tenents of Capitalism. Under idealism Capitalism, the “market” is allowed control through competition. In a Corporatist structure, it is in the best interests of the forporations (in an effort to maximize their profits) to control the “market” via monopoly (either horizontal or vertical).
Yes, I understand the material needs for survival, as necessary to sustain life, like lacking water,food, or air, but regardless of people possessing in abundance those goods, they still could be pretty miserable, and therefore the lack of material goods, in the form of property, and specially property not related to the sustenance of life, is not an Ontological requirement for happiness, that it is ultimately subjective to an attitude towards life, if you compare the amount of possessions that we have today versus a pre-industrial revolution individuals, we can’t come to the conclusion that today we are more happy because we posses more. Happiness is a state of being, (subjective) not an objective, quantifiable by the possession of material goods. Here we are talking about Consumerism as a way of life, that is threatening, since to buy and to own has become Western society, and by example the World essential urge.
Indeed, as consumerism is based on constant purchasing of new goods and services, with little attention to their true need, durability or environmental consequences of manufacture and disposal, as it is driven by advertising which creates a desire to follow trends results in materialism as a major life philosophy.
Consumerism replaces normal common sense desire to have life’s necessities with artificial and insatiable search for things and money to buy them with. An intended consequence which is promoted by those who profit from consumerism is the acceleration of discarding of the old, either because of durability or a change in fashion. Capitalism, or Corporatism? In my view they go hand in hand, but this we can leave it for later.
This all resonates with my understanding of values.
I have started to think that true democracy is not possible when it is bound to money. It is out of any doubt that in one regard humans have never changed: it was always assumed that more is better. Always. It’s no wonder everybody tries to achieve that. The funny thing is that being even the best and honest person: if you have more, you will be the reason somebody else has less. If you have a lot more, a lot more people will have less of that. The rule of the universal balance. The phenomenon is that being equal is one of the most profound principles of democracy: have equal right, have equal chances, etc., but the recognition of success as being famous or extra rich means it is totally the opposite to democratic principles which should allow everybody, I mean everybody to get to this stage which is impossible because of the universal rule of balance. Funny or what?
Thanks so much for all fantastic posts and great conversations! Such a pleasure to read these articles. I am wondering how much time it takes because my art posts take about 2 weeks to compile, other blog is easier. These posts have so much information and great pictures.
I am not a naive, although believe ideals are important even if they may look impossible to achieve, at least they set an standard of how we should behave, regardless if most people would never attain such high standards, they would be shamed, and an will effort to be better, and that is progress, over the general selfishness, we Humans tend to stray into, if left with no guiding moral compass.
I am from the opinion, we can never leave aside, or slack in education, and morals, since each generation has to be able to face a quality of future, directly proportional to their efforts in those areas they may achieve, since each generation starts from zero, the accomplishment of past generations, it’s not ours to enjoy, but an example to follow, and work as hard, or more than they did, to obtain greatness.
Governments without a guiding compass, like now day, are totally irresponsible, and damaging to the generations ahead of us, who would inherit the mess we are leaving for them to pick up.
As for my writing, I just use what through the now many years of reading, and studying I have accumulated, in reality it’s no big deal, simply put, I use my strengths, like the rich use their wealth, to accomplish what they want.
Thank you Ines, for your comment, we appreciate it. 🙂