… it’s so subjective what chance do government have of improving it?
What one person sees as a nerve-racking, horrible experience, others see as an opportunity or an adventure. Recently I have done a lot of things that scare me — actually cause me to lose sleep, worry a little (which is a new experience for me) and experience what I think some people call ‘stress’.
But I am loving it. While it is, on the face of it, unpleasant, nothing really seriously good happens to you unless you take a chance.
If government tries to make people happier, if it starts to prioritise that above wealth creation, will they actually focus on happiness? Will they not instead accidentally concentrate on risk mitigation, harm avoidance and generally making life more dull.
People don’t want dull lives, they want eventful but safe lives that do not have too much sadness. Can government deliver that? Is it in their power?
No.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by david on July 5th, 2007 - 7:47 pm
That’s a really interesting thought. It’s not as if any single government program can make people genuinely happy. We’re well aware that money doesn’t make anyone but the extremely poor happier, and yet it seems to be the most obvious thing a government could do.
There are certainly concrete things that could be done though, quality of life issues like good health care for everyone, efficient transportation systems, providing adequate public safety. These aren’t needed for happiness, but one could assume that happiness becomes easier when they’re in place.
Indeed I think there are certain requisites that governments do not yet provide efficiently which could decrease dissatisfaction, but beyond those, there is little they can do.