Since When is it the Government's JOB to Make you Happy?

Published on January 18, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

Pulled this gem off of yahoo! News:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070117/wl_csm/ohappiness

According to the article, England's new aim is to make it's people happy. According to polls (I think "poll" is quickly becoming my most detested four letter word), only 36 percent of people are happy now, vs 57 percent in 1957.

Say WHAT?

OK, here's a clue for you, you crusty limey politicians. Happiness is not the government's responsibility, nor is it an attainable goal. Happiness is an internal personal state and there is nothing a government can do to create it or artificially boost it. Sure, the government could HELP with the happiness of people, but there is no way they can do it without banning free speech. I think when people live with a sense of impending doom, their happiness level is likely to be severely compromised, but the only way to erase that sense of impending doom is to ban any reporting of crime statistics, environmental concerns, political tensions, and other negative news.

If you want everyone to be happy, ban everything they can't afford. HDTV? Gone. iPods? Gone. Luxury cars? Gone. While you're at it, could you put in a ban on the Olsen twins, Paris Hilton and the Baldwin brothers? I just might put in my application for a visa if you do that!

But then the people at the top end of the pyramid will be unhappy. So then you need to put the luxuries back in (but can we please at least keep intact the ban on the Baldwin brothers? Why, you ask? Did you SEE P.C.U? Encino Man? 'Nuff said, on this front, at least). But then when you put the luxuries back in, the poor will be unhappy again. It's a never ending cycle.

I'm starting to think Jonathan Swift was ahead of his time, and maybe we SHOULD eat the poor (or Steven Tyler was ahead of his time and we should eat the rich). In other words, the only way to keep everyone happy is to have them develop a taste for soylent green. If you're unhappy, off you go!

I'll expand on this further and in a more serious vein when I'm not still in shock at the absolutely ludicrous proposition!

Comments

Dr Guy

on Jan 18, 2007

You should have put the Olsen twins in the title.

And actually, if you do away with luxuries, not only will the rich not be happy, but the people that make those things will not be happy. Back in the 80s, Congress slapped a luxury tax on big boats. The result? The market crashed for them, and a lot of people were put out of work who were far from rich.

Good article tho. But since England is a Parlimentary Monarchy, maybe instead of the government, they can assign the task to the royal family?

Island Dog

on Jan 18, 2007

I'm sure this is something our new Congress will look into.

Zoologist03

on Jan 18, 2007

Well, the only thing they could really do is pour a bunch of "happy pills" into the water supplies and when everyone is trippin' then they might be happy...except for the occasional bad trip here and there.

We have a "pursuit of happiness" thing going on...but you can't make everyone happy...ever.

~Zoo

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 18, 2007

See, we're thinking along the same lines. I'm thinking mandatory has brownie ingestion would work in that diredction.

But the soylent green idea's cooler.

bakerstreet

on Jan 18, 2007

ow do unhappy people tend to vote? You're over thinking this, imho. Buying votes outright is illegal, but if you provide excuses that the policies of your party will indeed result in "happiness", don't you think you are more apt to get the people's vote?

Raising the minimum wage is basically just buying votes. The reason they don't raise it to $50 is because everyone knows that it harms the economy, so their goal is to harm it as little as possible, while offering the largest payout possible to the people they want to woo. Is that altruism; simply wanting to improve the situation of people, or is it "Elect us and we'll send some extra cash your way"?

As "suffering" is winnowed away to nothing, what is left to woo people with? When everyone has their 40 acres and a mule, and a chicken is in every pot, what then? An Ipod in every pocket? Cheap viagra in every medicine cabinet?

Politics is about marketing. The difference is, with this kind of marketing they are buying US with out own money, or with out neighbor's money. Is it wrong? Given the differences in opinion we see regarding the outcome of things like raising the minimum wage, I'm not sure how you can separate altruistic ideals of making life better for people and just buying votes.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 18, 2007

Politics is about marketing. The difference is, with this kind of marketing they are buying US with out own money, or with out neighbor's money. Is it wrong? Given the differences in opinion we see regarding the outcome of things like raising the minimum wage, I'm not sure how you can separate altruistic ideals of making life better for people and just buying votes.

Meh. I like my idea better. I'm developing a taste for soylent green.

bakerstreet

on Jan 18, 2007

Yeah, but if I tried, don't you think I could twist Libertarian ideals to the same end? What does the Libertarian party support? Drug legalization? No Taxes? You could take a lot of those and say they are directly focused on making people happy, right?

Granted, you also support ending welfare, etc. Liberals also often support criminalizing gun ownership, etc. After reading your article I thought for a while, and it would be darned hard to really find much policy that doesn't intend to make at least SOME people happy.

I see your perspective, because it is about what government overtly DOES, and not what it doesn't do. You believe we'd be happier if the government did much less. So... your politics lends to happiness, too, right?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 18, 2007

Not the same thing by a long shot, Baker. Sure, government (theoretically) is about giving the people what they want, but that's a long shot from focusing specifically on their emotional state, as England is doing. It's a bunch of PC mamby pamby garbage, if'n ya ask me.

Now gimme my soylent green!

bakerstreet

on Jan 18, 2007

Tough difference for me to perceive, really, or at least differentiate.

"We hold these 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,"

bakerstreet

on Jan 18, 2007

Not really, I agree with what Gid says. It comes down to the overt handing of happiness to people, and empowering them to find it for themselves. The difference between the two is almost impossible to figure out, though, because it lends to what the intention of the person behind the effort.

We say that raising the minimum wage is buying votes, but then they can turn around and say that $600 tax refund checks do too. It's nutty, and in the end it is always going to be a problem with government. Let the eat cake, sure, but do we mail them some?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 18, 2007

Ok, remind me, Baker. Where is our government department of happiness?

Did you READ the linked article. This is more than just government responding to polls. A LOT more.

And, wait...does that say "the PURSUIT of happiness, or does it say "HAPPINESS". There's a big difference between the two. a BIG difference.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 18, 2007

We say that raising the minimum wage is buying votes, but then they can turn around and say that $600 tax refund checks do too. It's nutty, and in the end it is always going to be a problem with government. Let the eat cake, sure, but do we mail them some?

No, we mail 'em soylent green.

bakerstreet

on Jan 18, 2007

"Where is our government department of happiness?"

Ugh, seriously, take a look at a list of federal agencies. It might even be SMART to unify about half those into a "happiness" department. At least they'd have some sort of focus.

Dr Guy

on Jan 18, 2007

pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuit is not attainment. There is no guarantee that you will attain happiness. And while the declaration is an important document in the founding of this nation, it is not law.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 18, 2007

Ugh, seriously, take a look at a list of federal agencies. It might even be SMART to unify about half those into a "happiness" department. At least they'd have some sort of focus.

lol, true that.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!