The Pursuit of Happiness
In a recent article in talk_politics sophia-sadek presented an excellent article about the myth of natural property and in part the distinction between the "pursuit of happiness" as included in the Declaration of Independence contrasted with "property".
Now I'd like to start by mentioning that I do agree with the notion of a "natural right" to property (yes, an interesting thing from an anarcho-socialist to say, right?). I agree with not only the idea of natural, inalienable rights (even if they are socially mediated), but also with personal property. I certainly prefer mutual cooperatives rather than joint-stock as a model for capital ownership for example.
Even more so, I follow the classic liberals in their complete opposition in ownership of real estate without compensation to the public. For those numerous libertarians who think that is a socialist attack on sacred property rights, I can only urge you to read with a little care what your heroes, the enlightened dead white men, such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill et al., thought about landed property. Their answers may surprise you - and they were right.
But this isn't just to raise the debate over the moral legitimacy of political economy. What I want to raise is a return to the question of the pursuit of happiness, as sophia-sadek raised.. Which right do you think is more important, the right to property or the right to the pursuit of happiness?.
Now I presume that everyone here now those great lines from the American Declaration of Independence. Some consider them among the finest words in the English language; certainly that was the view of Ho Chi-Minh who repeated them as the opening words for the 1945 Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
The notion of Happiness in this context is very much tied to the language of the period. Richard Cumberland (1672), who first used the phrase (that I know of) referred used the phrase meaning the promotion of well-being in others. In Hannah Arendt (On Revolution, 1962) the pursuit of happiness (a chapter is spent on this subject) refers to public freedom and the ability to engage in public participation and well as private welfare. Arendt argues against limiting happiness to the private sphrere and that the lack of public freedom is a key cause leads to totalitarianism (Arendt also wrote On Totalitarianism). As well as the usual varieties (Stalinism and Nazism) Arendt also locates the possibility of a 'totalitarian democracy' based on the instrumentalisation of mass society; she sees the only viable alternative to be the "revolutionary spirit" of public participation as found in federations of councils, similar to the polis of the ancient Hellenes (which interestingly, became a bit of an obsession for Thomas Jefferson as he aged).
In 1999 Frey and Stutzer, University of Zurich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, have empirically correlated social participation with happiness. This is in addition to work (such as the The Economost's Quality of Life Index, which showed a positive correlation between GDP per capita and quality of life, as expeted. However it also showed ignificant disparities between the two depending on how that wealth was used. The nations were the Quality of Life was significantly higher (10 ranks or more) than their GDP per capita in the larger economies included places like Sweden (+14), Italy (+15), Spain (+14) and New Zealand (+10). Places where the QoL index was significantly lower that their GDP per capita included the United States (-11), the United Kingdom (-16), Saudi Arabia (-23), and almost at the bottom of the list (despite being a mid-range economy according to GDP per capita), was Russia (-50). The best places to live, overall, were Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Australia, Iceland, Italy, Denmark and Spain, Singapore and Finland.
Also worthy of reference is the excellent study by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Betterl", 2010). There is a popular slideshow, which illustrates a key point of the book for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.
The pursuit of happiness. It's about having public freedoms, it's about engaging in the public sphere, and it's about developing the economic capacity for others to engage in these activities as well as looking after our private well-being. Because that will make a more enlightened, free and democratic society. And that will make us happier.
Now I'd like to start by mentioning that I do agree with the notion of a "natural right" to property (yes, an interesting thing from an anarcho-socialist to say, right?). I agree with not only the idea of natural, inalienable rights (even if they are socially mediated), but also with personal property. I certainly prefer mutual cooperatives rather than joint-stock as a model for capital ownership for example.
Even more so, I follow the classic liberals in their complete opposition in ownership of real estate without compensation to the public. For those numerous libertarians who think that is a socialist attack on sacred property rights, I can only urge you to read with a little care what your heroes, the enlightened dead white men, such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill et al., thought about landed property. Their answers may surprise you - and they were right.
But this isn't just to raise the debate over the moral legitimacy of political economy. What I want to raise is a return to the question of the pursuit of happiness, as sophia-sadek raised.. Which right do you think is more important, the right to property or the right to the pursuit of happiness?.
Now I presume that everyone here now those great lines from the American Declaration of Independence. Some consider them among the finest words in the English language; certainly that was the view of Ho Chi-Minh who repeated them as the opening words for the 1945 Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
The notion of Happiness in this context is very much tied to the language of the period. Richard Cumberland (1672), who first used the phrase (that I know of) referred used the phrase meaning the promotion of well-being in others. In Hannah Arendt (On Revolution, 1962) the pursuit of happiness (a chapter is spent on this subject) refers to public freedom and the ability to engage in public participation and well as private welfare. Arendt argues against limiting happiness to the private sphrere and that the lack of public freedom is a key cause leads to totalitarianism (Arendt also wrote On Totalitarianism). As well as the usual varieties (Stalinism and Nazism) Arendt also locates the possibility of a 'totalitarian democracy' based on the instrumentalisation of mass society; she sees the only viable alternative to be the "revolutionary spirit" of public participation as found in federations of councils, similar to the polis of the ancient Hellenes (which interestingly, became a bit of an obsession for Thomas Jefferson as he aged).
In 1999 Frey and Stutzer, University of Zurich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, have empirically correlated social participation with happiness. This is in addition to work (such as the The Economost's Quality of Life Index, which showed a positive correlation between GDP per capita and quality of life, as expeted. However it also showed ignificant disparities between the two depending on how that wealth was used. The nations were the Quality of Life was significantly higher (10 ranks or more) than their GDP per capita in the larger economies included places like Sweden (+14), Italy (+15), Spain (+14) and New Zealand (+10). Places where the QoL index was significantly lower that their GDP per capita included the United States (-11), the United Kingdom (-16), Saudi Arabia (-23), and almost at the bottom of the list (despite being a mid-range economy according to GDP per capita), was Russia (-50). The best places to live, overall, were Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Australia, Iceland, Italy, Denmark and Spain, Singapore and Finland.
Also worthy of reference is the excellent study by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Betterl", 2010). There is a popular slideshow, which illustrates a key point of the book for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.
The pursuit of happiness. It's about having public freedoms, it's about engaging in the public sphere, and it's about developing the economic capacity for others to engage in these activities as well as looking after our private well-being. Because that will make a more enlightened, free and democratic society. And that will make us happier.