Hunger Exists to Destroy Itself
Alex Singleton makes a nice point:
We moan about modern Britain in a way that does not seem to scientifically correlate to how good - or bad - it is, empirically. Indeed, complaining is something of a national pastime and, ironically, something that people seem to enjoy.
Far from being a major problem, there is something virtuous about being unhappy with our present circumstances. Ludwig von Mises, one of the 20th century’s leading free-market economists, said (pdf) that to be happy with one’s existing condition: “and to abstain apathetically from any attempts to improve one’s own material conditions, is not a virtue. Such an attitude is rather animal behaviour than conduct of reasonable human beings.”
It is not the level of wealth that makes us happy. Instead, it is the process of betterment - the pursuit of it - that makes us happy. Whether we are twice as rich today as in 1971 has little bearing on our happiness, because it is in the past. Whether people can see their lives improving in the future is what counts. That is why economic growth remains a key component in happiness, despite what the happiness researchers might tell us.
There really is something wonderful about a place that keeps getting better. Those are the places most likely to already have it good, as a consequence of a history of improvement. But people are not driven to make things better for themselves because they are fully satisfied, but because they aren’t. Of course, happiness researchers do tell us that the level of wealth, and the growth that caused it, matters to happiness. Shall we then conclude that dissatisfaction, when harnessed to the institutions of wealth creation, is the source of its own reduction? Yes.
April 17th, 2008 00:10
The comment thread responses on the Guardian site are simply flabbergasting. Herbert Marcuse-style Marxism is alive and well in Britain.
April 17th, 2008 00:33
Although there are many gems in the thread, I think this one by “Ally F” is my favorite:
Amazing. “Neoliberal economics,” i.e. free trade, apparently consists of a series of zero or negative-sum interactions in which people trample on their neighbors in order to improve their own interests. Why the trampled upon accept these terms willingly, enthusiastically, over and over again, is not explained. Perhaps false consciousness is involved.
The negation of free trade, by contrast, involves positive-sum interactions of cooperation. The cradle-to-grave welfare state enables this cooperation by interfering with and ultimately preventing trading partners from voluntarily exchanging value for value with each other, thereby increasing the wealth and happiness of all involved. This mechanism is not well understood or easily explained, but - trust us on this one - we know what’s best for you better than you do.
April 17th, 2008 00:43
Just one more gem, this one from “CharlieMcMenamin“:
I love how he refutes his own argument with the concession that cradle-to-grave welfare statism improves his life by doing his saving and investing for him. He clearly understands that he is a fully grown adult asking to be treated like a child. Which wouldn’t be so bad, I suppose, if he didn’t also insist that everyone else be treated like children as well.
The world is a scary place, full of illness, family-breakups, and a thousand other possibilities. Therefore, please live my life for me because I’m too frighted to responsibly deal with life’s many challenges.