this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
1063 points (99.4% liked)
Political Humor
1350 readers
1142 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
who the fuck downvotes this
i hope their heart is doing okay. i heard its been going out recently
Technically "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't part of US law. It's in the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document in the sense that most people mean when they quote those lines. Maybe the person downvoting is attempting to draw attention to that distinction, or maybe they're just a dick. Who knows.
"It's only the foundational principle of our supposed democracy. Don't you know we only pay lip service to it, it's not actually in force."
Yes, there is an enormous contradiction between the declared ideology and actual policy in practice, I'm unironically glad you pointed that out. On the same hand, the constitution makes slavery legal, so maybe we should stop giving that fucking document so much god damned credit. None of our supposed rights are actually in force unless they are enforced. If nobody else is enforcing your rights for you, who does that leave to enforce the rights if you think you want them? I think it's time we remember that the law is made up and it does whatever whoever is in charge of enforcing says it does.
Maybe you've noticed, but the single guy who has decided he is currently in charge of deciding what rights we are supposed to have is just making whatever bullshit rights up for himself off the top of his head, whatever is convenient to his purpose, without bothering to refer to legal precedent or the constitution, very frequently in direct contradiction of those. It's working for him. Fantastically well. Let's stop asking permission for these rights as if we weren't supposed to be the ones from which the consent for government is supposed to be derived in the first place.
"Of the people, by the people, for the people;" I think that's not an unreasonable (and constitutionally precedented if that's important to you) right to substitute for the supposed right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they teach us about in our state-mandated public education.
Also, I've heard this bit before about not a legal document not an actual right, has anyone ever actually tried to argue, in court, that eg we don't have the right to be alive? Isn't that already covered by like, murder law? what about labour/penal law for liberty and the rights to eg free assembly, free expression, freedom of religion for happiness? Don't we have this right to life, liberty, and happiness de facto, or didn't most of us have a reasonable facsimile up until relatively recently? Aren't those laws/rights precisely the specific enumeration of the various ways we have our life, liberty, and happiness enshrined (or restricted, as in the notorious case of labour rights in america) as rights in the law?
christ there's so many fucking contradictions. the whole system is held together with load bearing institutional loyalty and good faith it's a wonder it took this long to collaps.
This was essentially the point that I was going to make. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that a right to "the pursuit of happiness" is one of the foundational principles of our nation but that means so many different things to different groups of people, many of which are mutually exclusive to one another. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what most people believe that phrase to mean. It only matters what is explicitly defined in law and, by extension, what can successfully be defended in court.
The people who know it's an obvious false statement.