Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Property

In a world where "property" was never changed to "happiness" in US discourse and documents, how would political science and philosophy have developed differently?
 
In a world where "property" was never changed to "happiness" in US discourse and documents, how would political science and philosophy have developed differently?

In the US, probably a greater focus on property rights that survive into the modern day. A more robust Takings law jurisprudence and a more robust property rights advocacy, maybe something parallel to the NRA for the Second Amendment. Outside the US, no direct effect I'm betting.
 
Might make banning slavery even harder then it was!

Perhaps, but the gist of the abolitionist movement countered the property rights argument with the moral argument that Humans Cannot Be Property. The 3/5 compromise in the Constitution already showed that blacks were not property in the same sense as a horse or a cow. So one may support the idea of strong private property rights that does not necessarily mean that one supports chattel slavery. Mid-19th Century libertarians like Lysander Spooner were often staunch abolitionists.

Benjamin
 
Charles Beard's Economic Interpretation of the Constitution gains, if possible, more currency among left wing scholars in the early 20th century. Lefties have more "evidence" that the founding fathers were reactionary elitists from the from the start, fighting for their "privilege" rather than liberty.

On the other hand, I think this phrasing will make it for more stinging dissents by the Court's conservatives in the "New Deal" cases. Cases like Wickard v. Filburn can even more easily be portrayed as Un-American and against the ideals of the Americans revolution.
 
Perhaps, but the gist of the abolitionist movement countered the property rights argument with the moral argument that Humans Cannot Be Property. The 3/5 compromise in the Constitution already showed that blacks were not property in the same sense as a horse or a cow. So one may support the idea of strong private property rights that does not necessarily mean that one supports chattel slavery. Mid-19th Century libertarians like Lysander Spooner were often staunch abolitionists.

Benjamin

Additionally it may force people to consider a compromise on compensated manumission far earlier. Instead of polarizing the slavery debate to the extremes (i.e. "it is our right" or "you are morally repugnant") it could possibly make discussing the issue as compensation for property not seem insane or government overreach. ITTL, after all, our govt was formed to help us pursue property so there is in theory a right to regulate that property (removing Hayne's argument in the 1830s) In the eyes of people of the time I think it is conceivable for them to discuss slaves as property in a way that would allow for eventual compensation. Admittedly there is about a 10 year window for this in the 1790s-1800s when this could happen but the ideas, brains and leadership all exist; and given the right conditions it is possible.
 
Would it actually say "pursuit of property" or "right of property," or even something a bit wordier?

("Life, liberty, and the fruits of their labor" or something to that effect.)
 
In the US, probably a greater focus on property rights that survive into the modern day
When Jefferson talked about Life Liberty and Property, He was talking Innate Property, Not Real or Personal.
Jefferson dropped Property from the DoI when it was pointed out that this conflicted with the Slave Laws that defined Slaves as real Property.
If it had been keep in, it is likely that the southern states would not have signed the DoI.
 

Spengler

Banned
Would it actually say "pursuit of property" or "right of property," or even something a bit wordier?

("Life, liberty, and the fruits of their labor" or something to that effect.)
you know if it said fruits of their labor I could see socialist have a slightly easier time in the usa then using that as a justification of labor theory of value.
 
Top