Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Free, Happy People, Holding Hands
Free people are happy people, sayeth Arthur C. Brooks.
For example:
Pundits and politicians on the left often tell us that a free economy makes for an unhappy population: the disruptions of capitalism make us insecure, and we would prefer the security of generous welfare programs and national health care. But for most people, it turns out, that isn’t true.
To begin with, those who favor less government intervention in our economic affairs are happier than those who favor more. When asked in 2004 whether it was the government’s responsibility to improve the living standards of Americans, 26 percent of those who agreed called themselves very happy, versus 37 percent who disagreed. When asked in 1996 whether it should be “the government’s responsibility to keep prices under control,” those who said it “definitely should be” were a quarter less likely to say that they were very happy than those who said it “definitely should not be.”
More interesting stuff from Brooks here.
Rimfax|4.21.08 @ 10:16AM|#
That's some nice chicken soup there, but I wouldn't go using it as a statistical source for the next liberal/libertarian mixer.
|4.21.08 @ 10:17AM|#
What?
It's not the same thing to say that free people are happier as it
is to say that people who prefer freedom are happier as it is to
say that people who think they're more free are
happier.
|4.21.08 @ 10:21AM|#
those who favor less government intervention in our economic
affairs are happier than those who favor more.
Smarter people are happier, perhaps?
|4.21.08 @ 10:21AM|#
To begin with, those who favor less government intervention
in our economic affairs are happier than those who favor
more.
Well, my question here would be, "What is the economic status of
those who favor less intervention in economic matters vs. that of
those who favor more?". That could make a world of difference in
why one group is happier than the other. And also why one group
would favor intervention and one wouldn't. I haven't had time to
RTFA, so if this is addressed, pardon me.
But really, without supporting information, this strikes me as
fairly useless data...
Episiarch|4.21.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Happy, unhappy, who cares? What I want to know is if the fourth Indiana Jones movie will suck. If not, then I will be happy.
Fluffy|4.21.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Yeah, gotta go with Pig here.
If you're already successful, you will be more likely to say that
you're happy, and will be less likely to see any pressing need for
government intervention to help you succeed.
I tend to think freer people will be happier, but don't think a
survey of this kind is a good way to demonstrate that.
|4.21.08 @ 10:25AM|#
How do we know "for most people, this isn't true"? Because people who favor less government intervention in our economic affairs are happier? Man, what?
|4.21.08 @ 10:26AM|#
To begin with, those who favor less government intervention
in our economic affairs are happier than those who favor
more.
Well Duh! Poor people are not as happy as rich people. Poor people
are more likely to favor government intervention due to their
failures to, prosper in the capitalist system.
IOW, it ain't the belief that makes them unhappy, it is unhappiness
that leads to the belief.
Positive feedback likely plays a role in all of this.
T|4.21.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Looking at the charts, people who think they're free also think
they're happier?
Delusional people are happier. Who knew?
Of course, not too happy still wins within the margin of error for
both sides.
|4.21.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Actually, I don't see how the information in this survey as it
relates to the graphic actually shows anything remotely like what
the conclusion drawn by it suggests.
People who perceive the world to be how they want it to be are
going to be happier than people who perceive the world to be not
how they want it.
That is to say, those who have higher standards of freedom may
respond that they think they have a moderate amount of freedom,
while those who think that we are currently as free as anybody
could want think that they have complete or a great deal of
freedom. Of course those who desire more freedom are going
to be less happy than those who desire no more freedom.
Fluffy|4.21.08 @ 10:36AM|#
T, the colors are confusing, but I think the big wedges are the "pretty happy" wedges.
Abdul|4.21.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Smarter people are happier, perhaps?
It's called "internal locus of control" vs. "external locus of
control." People who believe that they have control over their
lives tend to be happier and more successful--even in situations in
which they don't have control.
Psych studies have tested people for their relative locus of
control and then put both internals and externals in a no-win
situation. The internals performed better even though they couldn't
win.
Abdul|4.21.08 @ 10:45AM|#
James T. Kirk is the most outstanding example of a man with an interior locus of control. Only wussy externals set their phasers to "stun."
|4.21.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Smarter people are happier, perhaps?
Not according to Kant.
And wealthy people tend to be miserable jerks, and more than happy
to share that with anyone they encounter. Just being able to buy a
fancy condo is not sufficient for happiness.
TallDave|4.21.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Funny, I always thought those East Germans standing in bread
lines looked festive.
"What is the economic status of those who favor less
intervention in economic matters vs. that of those who favor
more?".
If you don't like your economic status, maybe you should look for a
solution that doesn't involve reducing someone else's
freedom.
I was happy when I was making $6/r schlepping pumps, saws, post
hole augers and other assorted dirty heavy equipment around at a
contractor's supply store. Why? Because I was also going to school
full-time and knew I would have a better future.
|4.21.08 @ 11:05AM|#
When I was just a kid making $12/hour with a wife who didn't
work, living in a $300/month apartment, it felt like I always had
cash in my pocket and could buy pretty much whatever I had a
hankering to buy.
Now that we both work and we both make (ahem) more than $12/hour,
we totally never have any money.
|4.21.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Those poor, deluded saps just don't realize how miserable they are, and how much happier they would be if they gave themselves over to the State. They must be sent to re-education facilities at once. Or insane asylums.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.21.08 @ 11:14AM|#
And wealthy people tend to be miserable jerks, and more than
happy to share that with anyone they encounter.
Only in a Jonathan Kellerman novel. My experience has been quite
different. Most of the rich people I know are very cool**. Mr Burns
might make you LOL but the stereotype is largely undeserved, at
least in my little corner of the universe.
**Except for those plastic bleach blond bimbos with Mattel tattooed
on their ass who cruise around Newport Beach in the MBZ clogging up
traffic.
robc|4.21.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Jaybird,
Lets see - 12*40*4 = 1920 per month, approximate gross.
300/1920 = 15.6%
Not saying this applies to you, but very few people can keep their
house payments down to 15%. Mine, for example, is 25.1%
(mortage+taxes+insurance), which is probably too high, but
doable.
Cash flow is key, high mortgage payments kill cash flow. Too many
house poor people around.
Will Rogers Or Abe Lincoln--Yo|4.21.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be
Fluffy|4.21.08 @ 12:11PM|#
wealthy people tend to be miserable jerks, and more than
happy to share that with anyone they encounter
I know what you mean, but I disagree.
I think it's possible to confuse "people who act angry a lot" with
"people who are unhappy" and they're not really the same. Sometimes
they're actually opposites.
Wealthy people tend to think that they occupy a position of higher
status in their day-to-day affairs that allows them to express
their anger with impunity. Your boss can yell at you. You can't
yell at your boss.
But being able to indulge yourself by expressing your anger
probably makes many people happier than they would be if they had
to keep their anger in.
To use a personal example, my wife thought for a long time that I
did not enjoy going on long trips in the car, because I would yell
at other drivers when I did not like their behavior or demeanor.
She attempted to make me "happier" by having me stop doing this.
What she did not realize was that if someone made me angry in the
first ten minutes of a three hour car ride, if I immediately yelled
at them, I would forget about it right away and have a perfectly
happy time - but if I kept my mouth shut and did not yell at them,
I would seethe for the entire drive and probably longer. Eventually
I explained the issue to her correctly and went back to my road
raging ways.
This board is another example. If you went by the tone of posts or
by the sentiments expressed, you might think that I am not enjoying
myself here. But yet I come here every day, right?
Trust me, those rich people acting like completely unsatisfied and
angry dicks you encounter are loving every minute of it.
Episiarch|4.21.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Fluffy has just described Donald Trump perfectly. He has to be enjoying himself.
Will Rogers Or Abe Lincoln--Yo|4.21.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Donald Trump is actually a dick. Anyone who would sic the eminent domain people on an old lady to steal her house for a limo staging area is a class A Dog Dick. Then he tries to have IJ busted off the case because they didn't charge the woman to represent her. He's a Dog Dick bastard and I don't care if he's happy or not.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.21.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Fluff, I am on board with that yelling at other drivers stuff. Some people (especially my friends when I was young and single) find the creative use of epithets and swear words amusing, but Mrs TWC really hates it. I mean she HATES IT! I try to stifle myself but it is really difficult. Doing better, though.
Naga Sadow|4.21.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I work in a casino with high rolling jerks. Gotta agree with Fluffy on this one. Shoe fits and what not.
From the Left.|4.21.08 @ 12:24PM|#
This confuses a free market with a free people Things like economic prosperity and health expand freedom. A poor person is not free to buy what he wants, to travel, or do any myriad of things that a rich person can do. An infirm person is not free to enjoy all the physical activities that a healthy person can enjoy. When the "free" market misfunctions and an economic crisis throws many into poverty, it contricts freedom. Libertarians go wrong by deifying the market. It's just a construct.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.21.08 @ 12:26PM|#
I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is
better.
I ain't been rich, but there is something to be said for not having
to sweat the rent. We waited for quite some time to have kids.
Careers were established and we got all the hard stuff out of the
way. Then when the bambinos come nobody is stressed because the
choice is buy food or pay the electric bill. It really makes the
road a lot smoother when all the bases are covered and you can
fight about the stuff that really counts. :-)
kinnath|4.21.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Yo lefty, I've heard it all before. No one can be free if
they're hungry, blah, blah, blah . . .
I've seen Russia behind the Iron Curtain. Being hungry is not the
same as not being free.
Quit insulting the millions of people that actually struggled to
get free.
kinnath|4.21.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Equal opportunity is not a guarentee of equal outcome.
Equal rights is not a guarentee of equal opportunity.
TallDave|4.21.08 @ 12:43PM|#
A poor person is not free to buy what he wants, to travel,
or do any myriad of things that a rich person can do.
He's free to become rich and then do those myriad things. He has no
guarantee of success, but then neither did the rich person.
Your boss can yell at you.
My boss makes less than me, and in the unlikely event he yelled at
anyone he'd be fired.
|4.21.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Happy, unhappy, who cares? What I want to know is if the
fourth Indiana Jones movie will suck. If not, then I will be
happy.
Bah! Who cares Heath Ledger's Joker looks friggin awesome!!
The Democratic Republican|4.21.08 @ 12:59PM|#
count me in the 23%. That is, if "not very happy" really means "extremely f-ing pissed"
Say what|4.21.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Fluffy | April 21, 2008, 12:11pm |
To use a personal example, my wife
thought
---
Er... You're a guy?
Wow. I have sat here for who knows how long assuming you were a
female. Sorry, man.
|4.21.08 @ 1:03PM|#
OT & FYI:
Monica Lovinescu, longtime critic of the former communist regime in
Romania, has died.
More
here.
robc|4.21.08 @ 1:21PM|#
count me in the 23%. That is, if "not very happy" really
means "extremely f-ing pissed"
I cant go thru life like that. Im almost always happy. If I lived
in Cuba, I would probably be happy most of the time (or, more
likely, dead - for trying to escape/assassinate).
kinnath|4.21.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Katmandu, Nepal (AP)
Nepalese soldiers and police guarding the slopes of Mount
Everest are authorized to shoot to stop any protests during China's
Olympic torch run to the summit, an official said
Sunday.
This is what "not free" looks like, dear Lefty.
Paul|4.21.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Pundits and politicians on the left often tell us that a free economy makes for an unhappy population: the disruptions of capitalism make us insecure, and we would prefer the security of generous welfare programs and national health care. But for most people, it turns out, that isn't true.
No, it is true. Politicians on the left are unhappy with a free
economy. There's no denying this.
Paul|4.21.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Libertarians go wrong by deifying the market.
We don't deify the market. We deify liberty. The free market is
merely a cornerstone of that liberty.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.21.08 @ 1:51PM|#
I have sat here for who knows how long assuming you were a
female.
Don't feel like the Lone Stranger, I thought Fluff was a babe for a
while as well. Figured it out about six months ago (give or
take).
The Wine Commonsewer|4.21.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Oh yeah, and I thought Mo was a chick too. But I think that's because I call my sister Mo.
|4.21.08 @ 1:54PM|#
"When the "free" market misfunctions and an economic crisis
throws many into poverty, it contricts freedom."
Funny, same thing happens when a "planned" market misfunctions. The
poverty thing, that is. Not much freedom to constrict to begin
with.
Funnier even is the fact that closer examination of "market
misfunctions" generally show that it's the latter kind that usually
happens.
Zeb|4.21.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Seems to me that the happier people are the ones who DON'T want
more freedom. If they think that they already have a lot of
freedom, they are not the people seeking to create more. The
unhappy ones are the freedom lovers.
Who the fuck is this Brooks? His analysis sucks.
|4.21.08 @ 2:19PM|#
"To begin with, those who favor less government intervention in
our economic affairs are happier than those who favor more."
So people who are unhappy with their economic condition are more
likely to think--rightly or wrongly--that government intervention
will make it better? So what? How does this prove less government
intervention will make people happier? (I'm not saying this isn't
true, only that *this study* provides no good reason to believe
it.)
"People who say they have more freedom are happy!" (Maybe people
who are happy think they have more freedom?)
This is the dumbest study I have ever seen.
T|4.21.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Fluffy,
You're right. I misread the graph. Apparently most surveyed are
pretty happy. How odd.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245