tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post5632634000960034013..comments2024-01-09T16:17:22.327-06:00Comments on Bring the Books: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HappinessAdam Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-26057414315390880512008-05-09T18:33:00.000-05:002008-05-09T18:33:00.000-05:00"Thus, when a man like Thomas Jefferson takes the ..."Thus, when a man like Thomas Jefferson takes the words of John Locke and transforms them from “Life, Liberty, and Property” to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” he is stating the very essentials of what it means to be human biblically. The intention of government is not management of my life or provision of my needs. The purpose of government is to ensure that I am alive, that I have the proper freedom as a vicegerent to be a steward, and that I can go forth and fulfill the divine-desires placed within."<BR/><BR/>Wait... are you saying that Thomas Jefferson used "pursuit of happiness" instead of "property" because "[t]he intention of government is not management of my life or provision of my needs [?]"<BR/><BR/>If this is the case, then you clearly lack a basic understanding of John Locke's philosophy. "Property" refers to a right an individual has to his property against everyone else INCLUDING the government. This is a negative right, NOT an affirmative right as modern liberals would construe it. John Locke was a classical liberal who saw property as a negative right. So in other words you have a right NOT to have you property taken, but you don't have a right to property such that the government must take affirmative action to provide anything to you. Thomas Jefferson clearly did not leave out the word "property" for that reason. Any of our founding fathers would have understood basic Lockean philosophy. <BR/><BR/>The greatest mistake the founding fathers EVER made (other such things as allowing slavery, eminent domain, government regulation of commerce, etc...) was using the words life, liberty and pursuit of happiness instead of life, liberty, and property. Property is completely fundamental. In fact John Locke describes life and liberty as property rights! You own your life, and you own your liberty. (In relation to everyone but God of course, the idea of property does not negate the stewardship position one has in relation to God... so in this manner property rights are relative. But in relation to others they are objective.) But pursuit of happiness? Pursuit of happiness is a fundamental tenant of liberty! It's completely superfluous to ever have written it into the constitution. It only defines partially what liberty is (liberty is the puruist of happiness, but it could also be the pursuit of unhappiness too, or the purusit of nothing at all.) Thomas Jefferson originally wanted to quote John Locke by saying life, liberty, and property - but many of the federalists in the government would not allow it because they believed that a sovereign ought to have the right to violate individual property rights. So Jefferson had to compromise with "pursuit of happiness". Same thing happened with the constitution. The document is one big compromise - giving a bill of rights in return for a large federal government that has the power to take property with just compensation, and regulate commerce, etc...<BR/><BR/>Maybe "pursuit of happiness" is in line with reformed theology - I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. But natural rights are about so much more than just life and liberty. Even socialists recognize the right to life and liberty. It's not saying much to say that "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" came about as a result of reformed theology... and if it really is true - it reveals nothing more than a defect in reformed theology. (A defect of ommission.) However, I would venture a guess that reformed theology DOES recognize basic property rights. (I'm sure reformed individuals like Josh Walker, who last time I checked calls himself a libertarian, would agree with that.)The heretichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10975079854569187569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-25998326673537151832008-03-17T14:38:00.000-05:002008-03-17T14:38:00.000-05:00Great post, I really enjoyed it. John Robbins wrot...Great post, I really enjoyed it. John Robbins wrote a great essay using primary and secondary sources to show how the Calvinist understanding of total depravity informed the Founder's view of government more than any other philosophical thought.<BR/><BR/>http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=162Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-29004760757424014462008-03-08T22:56:00.000-06:002008-03-08T22:56:00.000-06:00Jason,I see. This post is good and a great example...Jason,<BR/><BR/>I see. This post is good and a great example to do our history very carefully. We ought not to read our modern struggles and issues back into dead theologians. <BR/><BR/>I like this work in historical theology!Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-45814736424825966332008-03-08T19:41:00.000-06:002008-03-08T19:41:00.000-06:00One of the inadequacies of my post is that I do no...One of the inadequacies of my post is that I do not mean that the Founding Fathers were looking specifically to Edwards when they penned their nation-creating words. In fact, I believe it was Dr. John Gerstner, Sr. that stated that there have been few if any studies on how Edwards’ writings formed and impacted the political ideas of both the Revolution and the Founding Fathers.<BR/><BR/>Instead in <I>Religious Affections</I>, Edwards simply presents a typical cross-section of the 18th century American understanding of anthropology – Edwards simply elucidated it and applied to the Great Awakening and salvation/sanctification. This same understanding, i.e. of man being guided by desire, is reflective in the writings of Van Mastricht, Cotton Mather, etc. I can provide some samples in a little bit if you like….<BR/><BR/>What I a putting forth is that the phrase “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is reflective of this dominate Calvinist understanding of anthropology. I believe that we attempt to read 21st century definitions back into much of our Founding documents without having a clue about the worldview(s) of the author(s).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-91360769241662622362008-03-07T16:37:00.000-06:002008-03-07T16:37:00.000-06:00Jason,What evidence is there that Edwards' view in...Jason,<BR/><BR/>What evidence is there that Edwards' view influenced the Founding Fathers?Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.com