@JJ . . . Are you serious? Do you seriously believe that the basis for your stance for capitalism is justified by a line on a purely politically motivated document? Following the paragraph is a set of grievances against King George. Anywhere there do you see His Majesty's violation of the subject's rights to capitalistic pursuits?
Do you have an understanding of the basis for Jefferson's inclusion of those lines in the document?
First, John Locke who many argue influenced Jefferson in his drafting of the Declaration wrote:
"To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that all human beings – as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties – are equal amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection unless God (the lord and master of them all) had clearly set one person above another and conferred on him an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty."
Would you agree that this is closer to my argument than yours in current context? Do you think the economically and politically disadvantaged have equal power and jurisdiction in American society today?
Or alternatively, some argue that Jefferson was influenced by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui who has stated:
II. I grant, at first setting out, that the primitive and original society, which nature has established amongst mankind, is a state of equality and independence; it is likewise true, that the law of nature is that, to which all men are obliged to conform their actions; and in fine it is certain, that this law is in itself most perfect, and the best adapted for the preservation and happiness of mankind.
III. It must likewise be granted, that if mankind, during the time they lived in natural society, had exactly conformed to nature's laws, nothing would have been wanting to complete their happiness, nor would there have been any occasion to establish a supreme authority upon earth. They would have lived in a mutual intercourse of love and beneficence, in a simplicity without state or pomp, in an equality without jealousy, strangers to all superiority, but that of virtue, and to every other ambition, than that of being disinterested and generous.
IV. But mankind were not long directed by so perfect a rule; the vivacity of their passions soon weakened the force of nature's law, which ceased now to be a bridle sufficient for them, so that they could no longer be left to themselves thus weakened and blinded by their passions. Let us explain this a little more particularly.
V. Laws are incapable of contributing to the happiness of society, unless they be sufficiently known. The laws of nature cannot be known otherwise to man, than as he makes a right use of his reason; but as the greatest part of mankind, abandoned to themselves, listen rather to the prejudices of passion than to reason and truth, it thence follows, that, in the state of natural society, the laws of nature were known but very imperfectly, and consequently, that, in this condition of things, man could not lead a happy life.
VI. Besides, the state of nature wanted another thing, necessary for the happiness and tranquillity of society, I mean a common judge, acknowledged as such, whose business it is to decide the differences, that every day arise betwixt individuals.
VII. In this state, as every one would be supreme arbiter of his own actions, and would have a right of being judge himself both of the laws of nature and of the manner, in which he ought to apply them, this independence and excessive liberty could not but be productive of disorder and confusion, especially in cases, where there happened to be any clashing of interests or passions.
VIII. In fine, as in the state of nature no one had a power of enforcing the execution of the laws, nor an authority to punish the violation of them, this was a third inconveniency of the state of primitive society, by which the efficacy of natural laws was almost entirely destroyed. For, as men are framed, the laws derive their greatest force from the coercive power, which by exemplary punishments, intimidates the wicked, and balances the superior force of pleasure and passion.
IX. Such were the inconveniences, that attended the state of nature. By the excessive liberty and independence, which mankind enjoyed, they were hurried into perpetual troubles; for which reason they were under an absolute necessity of quitting this state of independence, and of seeking a remedy against the evils, of which it was productive; and this remedy they found in the establishment of civil society and a sovereign authority.
X. But this could not be obtained without effecting two things equally necessary; the first was to unite together by means of a more particular society; the second, to form this society under the dependance of a person, invested with an uncontrolable power, to the end, that he might maintain order and peace.
Again, I dare say that this is a stance closer to my argument than yours.
I have given your post more thought than it actually deserves because I was somewhat disgusted that a fellow American can have such a shallow and misguided view of American ideals. I thank you that you have confirmed my cynicism about pure democratic principles as it applies to America today.
