>There's a reason why the vast majority of American's live paycheck to paycheck, and quite frankly I want nothing to do with this shitty system. Those people just aren't smart enough to figure out how to make the system work for them. You are not above them for realizing it's hard and not even trying. Fuck off you NEET.
I'm not getting into my life too deep, but I'm a highschool dropout who fucking OWNED the system. Not at first, but I got there after a few years of hard work and watching out for the typical traps of society.
Noah Mitchell
The trick is really knowing how to budget your money. Anticipate that you are going to have to pay car repairs and shit. Put a chunk of your pay into savings every month and get a nice cushion going. Once you are stable just keep building from there. Make smart investments and let your money start working for you. Live modestly, shacking up with some people you like. You don't need that nice sports car just because you have enough money to afford it now.
If all goes well you will achieve financial freedom and your life will belong to you in no time. You are now free to do whatever the fuck you want.
There, bitches. Now go figure it out.
Jordan Collins
It pretty obviously means 'you're allowed to try to thrive, God said so.' He likely considered owning property a subset of achieving that, but noted people sometimes never could get property, so it isn't a thing automatically granted by God.
And I don't know why everyone here thinks Thomas "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies" Jefferson, an agrarian farmers-only utopian idealist, would want wagecucking and debt. jfc.
Gabriel Kelly
True but there's obviously more concrete linguistics than others. Abstract concepts like emotions are recognized as some of the least tangible ones in languages. Not to say that they are not powerful concepts or have no use but they are inherently very elastic in interpretation. I am arguing that an important clause in the foundational legal work for a nation is not the place. It is a loophole as wide as the Atlantic ocean. We're not entitled to the property of our own labor? Have you even read Locke? He's not talking about some 40 acres and a mule pie in the sky promise. Literally what you earn is yours and the government has no right to it. Jefferson's clause does not make this explicit and opts instead for some feel good emo shit that sounds deep, but isn't. Property means more than land. Literally all you rightfully possess is your property. Including your body. Jefferson's phrasing necessarily implicates that we do not even have rights to our own bodies and indeed the modern American state infringes on my body by limiting my choice of consumption and mandatory drafts. I do not know if all of this was Jefferson's intent but it is the consequence non the less.
Jose Williams
It was a rebuke of slavery. Slave-owning states leaned hard on Locke's inclusion of "property," and argued that even if slavery were abolished, they'd have the right to slaves they already owned, because Locke promised property. By changing it to "the pursuit of happiness," Jefferson removed support for this pro-slavery argument from the Declaration.
Ayden Johnson
Nah see It would still be quite reasonable to claim that slaves are men and therefore the preceeding clause that "all men are created equal" would supercede any property based claim to their bodies and labor. Indeed to own a slave would be to deny him his right of property. It denies him his body, which he rightfully owns and all of the labor and fruits thereof, which he rightfully owns as property.
