Yeah, I think I'll do that as long as I can. So I believe I have some unfinished business with that last post. What is the "pursuit of happiness"? There is more to that question, but I'm not sure how to ask it. Do people really care if they are impeeding someone else's if theirs is going well? ...That isn't too far off I guess. Oh yeah, and there is the original purpose of this blog, what is the governments role in this?
I am kinda just sitting here at this point trying to decide whether to approach this from the top down, or from the bottom up. I think I will go with the top down approach to change things up (since I have been doing this so long and my many readers are so comfertable with my style...). Earlier I made a statement that I think the government's ( I think I'll call it the govey for short) most basic function is to protect the more vulnerable of it's governed from those that could and would take advantage of them. This may just be my opinion; I've heard one other person make a stab at the govey's most basic role (some congresman, or senator on NPR) and that was "to protect our shores and deliver our mail" (I'd like to hear more more ideas about that actually). I think mine is better (in fact, he said that should be the govey's only role).
Anyway, I do see a very clear relationship between people's conflicting pusuits of happiness and a need to keep one from bulldosing the other just because they can. For example, one person (Guy A) may be living on a hill and another person (Guy B) may come along and decide they want to live on that hill (neither is willing to share the hill in this scenario). There is now a conflict of interest, and of course there are different ways to settle the dispute. Guy B could pay for the hill, he could go somewhere else, something like that... or if he is bigger he could just beat up Guy A and take the hill. Does Guy B have more of a right to the hill because he is bigger?
The above scenario is very basic because a hill is something tangeble, but what about things that are not so tangible like smoking in a public place? I for one would like to be able to go anywhere and not have to put up with smoke all the time. On the other hand, some one who smokes may want to take a quick smoke break from time to time without having to seek out some designated smoking spot half a mile away. I'm pretty sure that people who don't smoke would all team up with me and not care that we are taking away someone else's right to enjoy (their shortened, and diminished quality) life the way they want.
I think it is safe to say that though annoying to the people who lose them, the intanebles aren't missed as much. We'd all love to have the God given right to always park in the best spot, or always be the first in line at potlucks, but those aren't the things that we fight for or even think about on a daily basis. There is one think that people think about possibly even more often than sex, money. At least in the US, all of those other little (and big) things are basicly determined by how much money you have anyway. Perhaps this is too big of a leap, but I'd have to say that in this country the "pusuit of happiness" = the ability to obtain + keep money.
The most basic role of the government? I'm not really a fan of the "senator's" definition, but I think you're on the right track with "to protect the vulnerable." However,it also protects the rights of the less vulnerable. It's more about protecting a person's certain "unalienable rights." So I guess the question is, what's included in those unalienable rights? The right to own land? To vote? To have clean water? roads?...Apparently we don't have a right to health care unless we have money... but that's another topic.
ReplyDeleteI can see where your coming from in your equation to the pursuit of happiness, but I do think it is a little bit too big of a leap. There are a lot of people who are comfortable at their financial level and aren't pursuing riches. Although, perhaps if they knew how, then they would. But I think that equation is definitely over simplified. Think about the people that do have a lot of money... what is there pursuit of happiness?
Good questions, I wonderabout those same things myself. Health care for example is unclear as an unalienable right. There would be none if there was only one person on earth who is "completely free", but without it many people's lives would unnecesarily be cut short (violating the unalianable right to life).
ReplyDeleteInstead of defining the persuit of happiness as the ability to get rich, I should have stated that in the US having money is definitely the vehicle to the pusuit of happieness. There is definitely more to happiness than money, but the majority of the time money is required to aquire it.