Life, liberty, and happiness.

Hello fellow ATS members, I've been pondering something lately this election season and today I'll go back to the basics.

Life. Liberty. Happiness.

In my opinion, this is the order which we should prioritize things. It isn't always so, but it should be. Why?

Life is pretty obvious. If something threatens a persons life in a literal manner, it should be deemed the most important, because loss of life would be the denial of the pursuit of anything at all.

Liberty would be next, because justice, freedom, free will... Are keystones, structural components of a free nation. Aspects of liberty ensure the most prosperous nation, the most prosperous people.

Happiness is our third in the list, and I believe it to come in last place simply due to it's subjective nature. Happiness is a pursuit, a mindset, it's not one thing for all people. and certainly cannot be defined within law. Ensuring life and liberty can allow said pursuit, but happiness cannot be exclusively legislated, I'd argue.

So, I ask myself.... Is there anyone to vote for who would advocate these unalienable rights? RIghts that... Seem to be less unalienable for whatever reason these days?

Well, I don't know. I would like the opinion of others here on ATS.

My first thought would be that any candidate for president, and anyone in congress ,senate, or the judicial branch that want to continue these wars that have done nothing, for anyone, should be out. It's nearly proven that these wars are not advocating for the liberty of other countries, and the only thing we 100 percent know for sure, is that they have resulted in a loss of many lives. The number one important thing on our list.

On that note, can anyone tell me if the term limits convention is growing in popularity? I've heard more states plan to get on board with it.

Anyways, thoughts anyone?

Do we have any candidate, big or small who would likely advocate for these rights? Or do we have a long list that seek to deny constitutional rights, denying our liberty, continuing wars which deny us and others life, etc?

Cheers fellow members,

Deadlyhope

a reply to: deadlyhope

All of those things on your list are easiest without Government involvement. The mere existence of the Fed's makes those things harder to attain. We should be voting under the principle of he who governs best governs the least.

So your question is who is for small, non-intrusive Government and you come to the real problem. No one wants less Government on either side of the aisle.I see Bernie as the worst option by far and maybe Gary Johnson the Libertarian as the best.

All of those things on your list are easily obtainable by simply eliminating 90% of the Federal Government.

a reply to: Metallicus

Agreed. I believe the federal government could indeed be much smaller, and things run even more efficiently and be a blessing to the people, not a curse.

Less government, less war, more life.
Less government, less regulations, laws, taxes, etc - More liberty.
More liberty, more freedom, more happiness.

Is how I see it, at least.