Is the Declaration of Independence a Socialist document?

My thoughts on this are somewhat long winded so I will start with the answer. No the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not Socialist but they are social.

The Declaration starts with assertion “We hold these truths to be self evident.” What follows turns the social and moral theory of the day upside down. The organizing purpose of society is not “the pleasure of the King” but the welfare of the people. Rights are not given by God to the King, who then distributes them downward as he sees fit, but are “Endowed by our creator” equally to all.

The Declaration of independence states that we have a God given right to pursue happiness and that the government is created to foster this goal. The Constitution gives each an equal say how the government functions.

Normal market theory would then predict a government whose goal was the most happiness for the most people.

Viewed from this perspective the Marxist organizing principal “From each according to his abilities: to each according to their needs” could be view as just a statement describing a state of maximum efficiency for reaching societies goal. Ie the most happiness for the most people.

Does this mean that our founding fathers were socialists. No. While the foundling fathers would probably agree with socialist as to the goals of government they would not agree with the means most likely to get us there.

While the Constitution and Declaration are mute as to public ownership of the means of production they are in my view clear as to the basic purpose for government. In my view the Tea Party has forgotten this purpose and has gone back to the older theory that the wealthy are wealthy threw Gods Grace and the general public has no rights to expect more from them.. This difference comes into sharpest focus when talking about tax policy.

Given that all taxes do harm to those from whom they are collected. Is the goal when collecting taxes “Do the least harm to the fewest” ? If so tax policy must take into account the marginal utility of money. IE an extra 10% tax means a lot more to a poor elderly person who is already having to decide between food and medicine in their weekly budget than it does to a billionaire.

Is unearned money deserving of a special consideration. Should inherited money be tax free as Republicans suggest or should collecting taxes encourage industry and favor earning income as was the law in the Eisenhower administration.

When President Obama suggests that sharing the wealth is desirable it is not socialism. It is rather; a true expression of the founding principals of our country.