Hi Daniel, Thanks so much for doing that. I've done somewhere around 5000 posts and I have hard time remembering which ones were good. At some point I may go back and revisit a few.
> The phrase clearly echoes John Locke’s “life, liberty, and estate”, sometimes written “life, liberty, and property”. From a logical perspective, Locke’s phrasing seems to make more sense. After all, life, liberty and property are three things that can be secured by a well functioning legal system. So why didn’t Jefferson adopt Locke’s terminology?
I think it will help to quote the full sentence from the Declaration:
"We hold tese Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
Did Jefferson believe that our Creator endowed us with the unalienable right to property, or the pursuit of it? That seems less likely, regardless of his stance on taxing it. Recall also that the ability of the state to tax back then was much more limited, and was often "in kind" in the form of requiring labor on certain communal projects (also common under pre-capitalist manorialism), rather than being a matter of taxing "property" per se, even if we might now see such conscription of labor as being a constraint on liberty. The liberty he spoke of would have also had something of Benjamin Constant's "liberty of ancients", and when they fought for "no taxation without representation" the latter would have been a kind of liberty. The pursuit of happiness may be more purely a matter of the modern concept of liberty as an unconstrained private sphere.
The US did not adopt the English practice of conscripting sailors right off the street ("impressed"), so that might be one aspect of what he had in mind by liberty.
There was mandatory service in the militia, but you're right that they were deliberately trying to avoid a standing military dependent on conscription like the British had.
Was the militia a fairly low level of service compared to being impressed into the English navy? That's my impression, but my knowledge of early American history is weak.
Yeah, I think the ideal was that people could show up and return home at their own leave without completely having their lives commandeered. The militias famously refused to invade Canada during the war of 1812. When a sailor is impressed, he can be sent around the world without any way of getting back short of seizing the ship in a mutiny.
Moderation, temperance, and balance and such, to be found in the happy person - reminded me of that great and beautiful and forgotten Ancient Greek virtue, sophrosyne.
You need to write on that.
The happiness discussion reminds me of Aquinas’ fine distillation of Aristotle’s view: “happy is the man who gets everything he desires, provided he desires nothing amiss”
Scott, obviously your movies reviews have gotten attention over the years, and I've watched many movies based upon your recommendations and not regretted it. One thing I'd be interested in from you, since I respect your visual taste so much, would be posts about visual art and architecture. You have a passion for those things, and you write very clearly. One good reason for you to write about those subjects is that you aren't pretentious, whereas many who do write about those subjects are or seem to be.
For instance, I'd love to see you write posts about your favorite artists and architects and to explain what you like about them in the same manner as your film posts.
Edit: Let me refine that. Like your movie reviews, you could post about the artworks and architecture you have seen that month, quarter, etc., and give your caption reviews like you do for movies. That would be great. You are a good educator and when you write about things about which you are passionate it edifies us art-curious Philistines.
Added: Are you a fan of any of the classic movie critics like Pauline Kael or Manny Farber? I've got the Collected Works of Manny Farber on my shelf and have read maybe 20% of it. If find it hilarious how he always finds something to be really negative about no matter how great the movie. But he makes you realize how many moving parts there are to a movie. Of course one of the 50 things that could go wrong with a movie went wrong, and Manny will tell you exactly what it was in every case. But what I admire most is the seriousness with which he takes movies. It's like reading literary criticism of Faulkner. I had no idea until maybe 6 years ago when I discovered Farber that mid-century film criticism was taken that seriously. Anyway, in lieu of Kael or Farber, I like what you have to say. The New Yorker and New York Times have caved to popular pressure and no longer review movies as if they were art.
I actually am planning to write on both art and architecture. I used to enjoy reading Kael when I was younger, but then my taste diverged a bit. But she's a good critic.
I do not agree with not criticizing the _views_ of other public intellectuals. My idea is that most people are party right and partly wrong and would profit from having their flaws pointed out.
Hi Pedro, Thanks for subscribing. I asked the chat box, and got this answer:
"Yes, Substack provides an RSS feed for your publication. You can find the RSS feed at `https://your.substack.com/feed`. Just replace "your" with the name of your Substack publication. For your specific Substack, the RSS feed URL would be `https://scottsumner.substack.com/feed`."
Does that help? I've never used RSS, so I don't really understand the concept.
When we’ve received enough milk and love as children, enough education and exposure to experience as adolescents, and we needn’t steal bread and dodge bullets as adults, the pursuit of happiness opens up as a real possibility. Not everyone in history has had the opportunity. For me, a nation devoted to this ideal is one that strives to cultivate a general welfare sufficient such that one and all can find the time, resources, and desire to flourish. After that, you’re on your own.
I'm curious about your perspective on utilitarianism and retributive justice. The thought that I had was, which society is better: society in which bad people (or people who have done very bad things) are miserable, or a society where they are happy? (Given all else is equal i.e. ignoring disincentive effects of punishment.) Intuitively the first feels more comfortable to me but that seems to run against utilitarian ideals, do you have any thoughts on this?
To me, there doesn't seem to be that much daylight between you and the Stoics. Although they are often criticized for equating your third concept of happiness with the other two, the Stoics believed that living a virtuous life wasn't just for virtue's sake but for eudaimonia. And eudaimonia can I think be looked at as simply a sustainable form of happiness.
I'm not well schooled in philosophy. But years ago when I read a bit I was surprised by the extent of overlap between Stoics, Cynics, Epicurians, etc. Smart people all seem to end up in roughly the same place, even if they use different approaches. Ditto for religion.
BTW what IS the money illusion? What I call the money illusion is this: two things are the same if they have the same price label. So if a rich person has a $100M painting, somehow that can be redistributed to the poor who will buy 1M $100 sneakers. But it clearly does not work like that. There are some very clear limits of redistributions when we think about real actual goods and not simply money or price labels.
I’d say this goes further back than the enlightenment. Aristotle talks about this using the word Eudaimonia. This is like happiness but is a bit broader and represents the highest good and the end toward which all human actions aim. Happiness, in his view, is the result of a life lived in accordance with reason and virtue, leading to the fulfillment of one’s potential.
I think this is what Jefferson meant. The right to life, liberty, and the fulfillment of one’s potential… which can be done by being virtuous and mastering lower appetites through the use of human reason.
This was fused with Christian philosophy by people like Aquinas who described happiness as the beautific vision or beatitudo. That is the meaning of the Imageo Dei, which is the capacity to reason and the desire for union with God
Maybe I am wrong about this, but isn’t one problem with utilitarianism that it is too vague? Happiness or utility can be defined in so many different ways that I am often unsure what someone means when they describe themselves as a utilitarian? What are the relevant alternatives to utilitarianism? Being some kind of Kantian? Also, the definition of utilitarianism as “everyone’s well-being is equally valued” sounds more like egalitarianism than utilitarianism. Why call that utilitarianism as opposed to egalitarianism?
There's lots to say on those points. My “everyone’s well-being is equally valued” is pushback against people who complain utilitarianism ignores equity issues. It's actually pretty radical in the sense that one util earned by any human on earth is equally valued. What that means in policy terms is more questionable--for example, Peter Singer favors more redistribution than I do. Thus it doesn't provide a crystal clear roadmap for policy, as there are too many uncertainties. But if someone tells me my plan for redistribution is immoral because "taxation is theft", I respond that that argument carries no weight with me, as I'm a utilitarian. The same if someone objects to kidney sales because the body is sacred. I respond that I'm a utilitarian.
For anyone new to Scott's writing, I've curated a list of my favourite Scott Sumner posts here:
https://danfrank.ca/the-wisdom-of-scott-sumner-my-favourite-non-econ-scott-sumner-blog-posts/
I'm so excited to follow along with your new blogging chapter, Scott!
Hi Daniel, Thanks so much for doing that. I've done somewhere around 5000 posts and I have hard time remembering which ones were good. At some point I may go back and revisit a few.
> The phrase clearly echoes John Locke’s “life, liberty, and estate”, sometimes written “life, liberty, and property”. From a logical perspective, Locke’s phrasing seems to make more sense. After all, life, liberty and property are three things that can be secured by a well functioning legal system. So why didn’t Jefferson adopt Locke’s terminology?
I think it will help to quote the full sentence from the Declaration:
"We hold tese Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
Did Jefferson believe that our Creator endowed us with the unalienable right to property, or the pursuit of it? That seems less likely, regardless of his stance on taxing it. Recall also that the ability of the state to tax back then was much more limited, and was often "in kind" in the form of requiring labor on certain communal projects (also common under pre-capitalist manorialism), rather than being a matter of taxing "property" per se, even if we might now see such conscription of labor as being a constraint on liberty. The liberty he spoke of would have also had something of Benjamin Constant's "liberty of ancients", and when they fought for "no taxation without representation" the latter would have been a kind of liberty. The pursuit of happiness may be more purely a matter of the modern concept of liberty as an unconstrained private sphere.
The US did not adopt the English practice of conscripting sailors right off the street ("impressed"), so that might be one aspect of what he had in mind by liberty.
There was mandatory service in the militia, but you're right that they were deliberately trying to avoid a standing military dependent on conscription like the British had.
Was the militia a fairly low level of service compared to being impressed into the English navy? That's my impression, but my knowledge of early American history is weak.
Yeah, I think the ideal was that people could show up and return home at their own leave without completely having their lives commandeered. The militias famously refused to invade Canada during the war of 1812. When a sailor is impressed, he can be sent around the world without any way of getting back short of seizing the ship in a mutiny.
I like this new home for your scribbles!
Moderation, temperance, and balance and such, to be found in the happy person - reminded me of that great and beautiful and forgotten Ancient Greek virtue, sophrosyne.
You need to write on that.
The happiness discussion reminds me of Aquinas’ fine distillation of Aristotle’s view: “happy is the man who gets everything he desires, provided he desires nothing amiss”
Scott, obviously your movies reviews have gotten attention over the years, and I've watched many movies based upon your recommendations and not regretted it. One thing I'd be interested in from you, since I respect your visual taste so much, would be posts about visual art and architecture. You have a passion for those things, and you write very clearly. One good reason for you to write about those subjects is that you aren't pretentious, whereas many who do write about those subjects are or seem to be.
For instance, I'd love to see you write posts about your favorite artists and architects and to explain what you like about them in the same manner as your film posts.
Edit: Let me refine that. Like your movie reviews, you could post about the artworks and architecture you have seen that month, quarter, etc., and give your caption reviews like you do for movies. That would be great. You are a good educator and when you write about things about which you are passionate it edifies us art-curious Philistines.
Added: Are you a fan of any of the classic movie critics like Pauline Kael or Manny Farber? I've got the Collected Works of Manny Farber on my shelf and have read maybe 20% of it. If find it hilarious how he always finds something to be really negative about no matter how great the movie. But he makes you realize how many moving parts there are to a movie. Of course one of the 50 things that could go wrong with a movie went wrong, and Manny will tell you exactly what it was in every case. But what I admire most is the seriousness with which he takes movies. It's like reading literary criticism of Faulkner. I had no idea until maybe 6 years ago when I discovered Farber that mid-century film criticism was taken that seriously. Anyway, in lieu of Kael or Farber, I like what you have to say. The New Yorker and New York Times have caved to popular pressure and no longer review movies as if they were art.
I actually am planning to write on both art and architecture. I used to enjoy reading Kael when I was younger, but then my taste diverged a bit. But she's a good critic.
I do not agree with not criticizing the _views_ of other public intellectuals. My idea is that most people are party right and partly wrong and would profit from having their flaws pointed out.
I think he's suggesting that criticism should focus on the issues, not the personality.
Hi Scott!
I'm a longtime fan and MI reader, happy to see the new endeavor.
Is there a way to enable RSS feed for the new substack? That would be amazing.
Thanks
Hi Pedro, Thanks for subscribing. I asked the chat box, and got this answer:
"Yes, Substack provides an RSS feed for your publication. You can find the RSS feed at `https://your.substack.com/feed`. Just replace "your" with the name of your Substack publication. For your specific Substack, the RSS feed URL would be `https://scottsumner.substack.com/feed`."
Does that help? I've never used RSS, so I don't really understand the concept.
Yes, it did! Many thanks, Pedro
Hi Scott, not been commenting for a while, sad to say, but still read you so subscribed.
I sort of gave up on pursuing happiness personally, in favor of interesting experiences.
When we’ve received enough milk and love as children, enough education and exposure to experience as adolescents, and we needn’t steal bread and dodge bullets as adults, the pursuit of happiness opens up as a real possibility. Not everyone in history has had the opportunity. For me, a nation devoted to this ideal is one that strives to cultivate a general welfare sufficient such that one and all can find the time, resources, and desire to flourish. After that, you’re on your own.
Hi Scott,
Really looking forward to this new blog.
I'm curious about your perspective on utilitarianism and retributive justice. The thought that I had was, which society is better: society in which bad people (or people who have done very bad things) are miserable, or a society where they are happy? (Given all else is equal i.e. ignoring disincentive effects of punishment.) Intuitively the first feels more comfortable to me but that seems to run against utilitarian ideals, do you have any thoughts on this?
Well that is off to a very good start Scott!!
To me, there doesn't seem to be that much daylight between you and the Stoics. Although they are often criticized for equating your third concept of happiness with the other two, the Stoics believed that living a virtuous life wasn't just for virtue's sake but for eudaimonia. And eudaimonia can I think be looked at as simply a sustainable form of happiness.
Anyway, I look forward to your new blog.
I'm not well schooled in philosophy. But years ago when I read a bit I was surprised by the extent of overlap between Stoics, Cynics, Epicurians, etc. Smart people all seem to end up in roughly the same place, even if they use different approaches. Ditto for religion.
BTW what IS the money illusion? What I call the money illusion is this: two things are the same if they have the same price label. So if a rich person has a $100M painting, somehow that can be redistributed to the poor who will buy 1M $100 sneakers. But it clearly does not work like that. There are some very clear limits of redistributions when we think about real actual goods and not simply money or price labels.
Good luck with the new spot.
I’d say this goes further back than the enlightenment. Aristotle talks about this using the word Eudaimonia. This is like happiness but is a bit broader and represents the highest good and the end toward which all human actions aim. Happiness, in his view, is the result of a life lived in accordance with reason and virtue, leading to the fulfillment of one’s potential.
I think this is what Jefferson meant. The right to life, liberty, and the fulfillment of one’s potential… which can be done by being virtuous and mastering lower appetites through the use of human reason.
This was fused with Christian philosophy by people like Aquinas who described happiness as the beautific vision or beatitudo. That is the meaning of the Imageo Dei, which is the capacity to reason and the desire for union with God
I think I like this interface better, keep up the good work, you're probably my favorite blogger (to be fair I only really follow a handful LOL)...
But for real, you run an excellent salon
Congrats on the move, I like it already!
Maybe I am wrong about this, but isn’t one problem with utilitarianism that it is too vague? Happiness or utility can be defined in so many different ways that I am often unsure what someone means when they describe themselves as a utilitarian? What are the relevant alternatives to utilitarianism? Being some kind of Kantian? Also, the definition of utilitarianism as “everyone’s well-being is equally valued” sounds more like egalitarianism than utilitarianism. Why call that utilitarianism as opposed to egalitarianism?
There's lots to say on those points. My “everyone’s well-being is equally valued” is pushback against people who complain utilitarianism ignores equity issues. It's actually pretty radical in the sense that one util earned by any human on earth is equally valued. What that means in policy terms is more questionable--for example, Peter Singer favors more redistribution than I do. Thus it doesn't provide a crystal clear roadmap for policy, as there are too many uncertainties. But if someone tells me my plan for redistribution is immoral because "taxation is theft", I respond that that argument carries no weight with me, as I'm a utilitarian. The same if someone objects to kidney sales because the body is sacred. I respond that I'm a utilitarian.