Pursuit of Happiness

John Stuart Mill

I have learned to seek my happiness by limiting my desires, rather than in attempting to satisfy them.
- John Stuart Mill 

I was reading the blogs of Jeffrey Carter, an "Independent Speculator" and Stock Market commentator, for the first time today. Most of his blogs are targeted at market traders but one title caught my eye, "Taxing Rich Guys". It makes the usual (conservative) points about how it's the investments from the Rich Guys that fund start-ups, create new businesses and create jobs. By reducing Rich Guy's wealth with higher taxes, you also reduce the available money to create jobs.

But that's old news if you read my blog. What made me sit up was his July 4th observation on the phrase "pursuit of happiness". People interpret this today as a right to happiness itself. That government must somehow save us from every pain and woe. But that is not the original intent. The Founding Fathers wanted the freedom to find happiness on their own terms. Freedom to pursue happiness.

This made me realize that we are far from that ideal today. The government blocks many forms of "enjoyment" - dog fighting, child porn, drugs, fox hunting, etc. You might argue that these are "evil" types of happiness and I would agree. But it's not so easy for society to draw the line between good and bad happiness. Gay sex was once illegal (and still is in some countries). One of the greatest minds in mathematics and computer science, Alan Turing, who helped win World War II by breaking the German Enigma code, was criminally prosecuted in England in 1952 for homosexual acts and died in prison. The British Prime Minister officially apologized for this in 2009. What was once officially banned is now allowed while things that were once allowed, like salty and fatty foods, are now being banned.

Suppose you like the wind in your hair as you ride a motorcycle - sorry not allowed; helmets required.

How should society decide between right and wrong activities for individuals (or consenting groups)?

One option can be found in John Stuart Mill's book, On Liberty, and apply his concept of Self-regarding actions vs Other-regarding actions. One website summarizes this as,

The sole permissible end for individual or collective interference with individual liberty of action is the avoidance of harm to others (other regarding actions). In  matters concerning only oneself, one’s right is absolute (self-regarding actions).  Over oneself, one’s body and mind, the individual is sovereign.  Hence, the following sacrosanct: absolute liberty of conscience, tastes, opinion & speech; limited liberty of pursuits and association (no harm to others clause). 

Another site has this to say,

When a person is only hurting himself or herself, Mill says that people can advise him/her to adopt self-regarding virtues but ultimately, each person has the complete freedom to make their own decision. If a person does not adopt self-regarding qualities, society cannot publicly denounce him/her, although they can hold their own personal negative opinions. These private opinions are what ultimately may hurt a person who is not pursuing what society perceives as his/her own best interests. This is referred to as a natural penalty that is incurred by bad self-regarding interests. In addition to that natural penalty, Mill states that in a harmful self-regarding action, the only harmed person is the perpetrator who in effect, is giving and receiving his own punishment.

Mill agrees in part to the counterargument against his philosophy stating that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that any action can solely affect the agent and will not be relevant to the community. However, he asserts that only when the action brings on the risk or actuality of public damage does society have the right to punish the perpetrator. Mill gives the example of a drunk man who shouldn't be punished for his intoxication unless he is a policeman or similar protector of society on duty and unable to fulfill his duties. In Mill's opinion, if a person's actions have little significance to society, then it is in the best interest of society to allow basic human liberties to prevail.

However even this "simple" concept quickly falls apart. Should animals count as "others"? If so then no fox hunts, dog fights or cock fights. Is it other-regarding if I hurt your feelings or offend in some way but do no physical harm? Some societies ban kissing in public as offensive. 


Bottom Line


What do you think? Should government protect your happiness at the cost of limiting what others may do? Limit your activities in order to protect animals from harm? Should government protect individuals from being offended? Protect people from injuring themselves with "bad" food or "dangerous" hobbies?

Are You Rich?

"Being rich is having money; being wealthy is having time"

-Margaret Bonnano

During the .COM bubble I recall a young .COM startup entrepreneur lamenting that although he was rich, he was not super rich. What's the difference asked a reporter? The rich, the young man replied, can afford to fly on private jets, the super rich can buy private jets.

I was reminded of this while reading a follow-up story on theAtlantic.com called Now, More Criticism of the Self-Pitying Wealthy Poor. It began with the "Whiny Law Professor" whose family makes more than $250,000 a year and was worried how he will make ends meets if Obama raises taxes for the "wealthy". $250,000 can quickly disappear when paying for private schools, elite private universities, multiple mortgages for large homes, several expensive cars, and loans for graduate schools.

Whether you are rich or poor can depend on your point of view. I loved this comment on theAtlantic story,

My mom insisted "we weren't rich". I've been in the financial business for 30 years and I have learned a few things about where, exactly, someone making a quarter of a million dollars a year actually fits in the economic pecking order. So I laughed and said, "mom, seriously, dad was a physician. That had to put us in the top 5% of all families in the country, and the top 1% for downriver Detroit! Why do you think you're not wealthy?"

The answer was perfect. According to my mom, all of her friends, the women she played bridge and golfed with, were married to specialists. My dad was a GP. And their husbands all made a lot more money than, in my father's famous phrase, a "dumb GP". They were the rich. We were not. Like the professor, it's all about your frame of reference.

Bottom Line

Wealth is a state of mind. You can be unhappy and feel poor with piles of money or richly blessed with a loving family living on a shoestring budget.

Perception

“Love is not blind; it simply enables one to see things others fail to see.”

I have long believed that Happiness is something internal, not external. A poor person with a loving family can be very happy while a rich person in a greedy family can be miserable. We make the decision regarding “do we have enough” or “is it good enough”. It’s a matter of perception.

For example, when traffic backs up during my commute I could decide to get frustrated and angry. Instead I enjoy the extra time this gives me with the lectures on CD I listen to.

Another example comes from Gary Smalley’s seminar, “Love is a Decision”. When I was googling Dr. Smalley a few days ago for an earlier blog, I was surprised to see how many sites cited this story. Clearly it made an impression on a lot of people.

Dr. Mark Smith tells it this way…

Dr. Gary Smalley […] was addressing a crowd on the theme of love and marriage, and he began his talk by walking over to a table and picking up an old, beaten up violin. The instrument’s bridge was broken and dangling by its strings. Holding up the violin for all to see, he asked the audience what he thought the instrument was worth. Everyone laughed, and most thought no more than ten or twenty bucks.

Then Smalley looked inside the body of the violin and read an inscription inside: “1723 Antonin Stradivarius.” There was an audible gasp, as the crowd recognized just how valuable it was. ($100,000 at the time).

Smalley passed it around to the people in the front row and they handled it very gently, with great respect. The amazing thing is that moments before, people thought it was just a piece of junk. Nothing changed – it was the same violin, the same wood, and the same broken strings. But people chose to honor it as the rare treasure it was. [One of 600 in the world.]

Enter “gary smalley Stradivarius” into Google for more references to this story.

Bottom Line

Choose to look the positive side of things. See the value in others and in the world around you.

Choose to see your spouse as a "Stradivarius" and sigh "awwwe" every now and then in their presence.

Stop and Smell the Roses

“Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What's a sundial in the shade?”-Benjamin Franklin

Snopes.com describes a social experiment conducted by the Washington Post newspaper. On a cold morning of January 12, 2007, thousands of commuters of the L’Enfant Plaza subway station passed a non-descript man playing a violin for tips. He played for 45 minutes and collected $32.17 from 27 people. Only seven people stopped and listened for a while.

What the commuters did not know what that this incognito “beggar” was really Joshua Bell, a world famous violinist. The violin he played is worth 3.5 million dollars. The pieces he played were some of the most difficult ever written for violin.

And yet only seven people stopped to listen. Only one person recognized him.

Other studies have also shown that we perceive what we except to perceive. In one study the same wine was offered free to restaurant customers if they promised to evaluate it. To half the diners the wine was given a fancy labeled from a Napa Valley winery. The other half saw a label from a local “unknown” winery. The participants rated the wine with the “famous” label quite favorably; the “unknown” label received lower ratings.

In another taste test, blindfolded official wine tasters rated some $10 bottles high while giving low marks to $100 bottles. When the blindfolds came off the officials were shocked and insisted that there must be some mistake or trick. “Everyone knows” the pricier bottles are better.

Bottom Line

Are you too busy to stop and appreciate beauty in life? Are you blinded by expectations and oblivious to many of life’s wonders? Would you “recognize the talent in an unexpected context?”