Comments (19)

• Yumi

  The idea of happiness policies is disturbing. There can only be individual happiness -- a happy 'society' has no meaning. For instance, in this piece on a 'happier society' by Richard Layard, the author argues that taxes serve as an important tool to police people's happiness/unhappiness. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/layard/RL362.pdf

  Indeed happiness by choice, not by command.

  Published: January 16, 2007 10:19 AM

• Bill Milligan

  Fully agreed, and I think you won't find much argument here. What I don't understand is, given that, why does Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World" always seems to get a bad rep with the LRC / mises.org crowd?

  (BTW, did anyone know it is now available in cheap ebook form? I found it last night -- it is completely not what I had expected!)

  - Bill
  

  Published: January 16, 2007 11:59 AM

• Grass Greener

  Of course the folks in Bhutan are happily. There is no envy, they are isolated. The problems arise from having a more comfortable situation nearby where the folks can value their "happiness" versus someone elses. For example if the US was not 90 miles from Castro, I bet the Cubans would be a lot happier. If Western Europe did not exist then the old Soviet Bloc would have been a lot happier.

  Fortunately my country did not have this happiness thrust upon it. Instead we had a group of risk taking believers in rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness construct a country where people could be as happy or as sad or as mad or as greedy as they choose to be.

  Published: January 16, 2007 12:24 PM

• mark

  After reading Daniel Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness", it is apparent to me that the sad fact about happiness is not that it something of an illusion but rather that happiness is real.

  Is it such a surprise that the things that make us laugh the loudest and provide our most memorable moments come rather unexpectantly?

  Because happiness is a real core constituent of cognition, it can not be freely chosen.

  But never put it past all the snake oil salesman to tell you otherwise.

  Published: January 16, 2007 1:19 PM

• Robert Brazil

  "And I dare say that even fewer know what kind of over-riding principle the top-down, command economy by which it is managed."

  This sentence seems a bit mangled. Otherwise, a great article.

  As Yumi said, the idea of happiness policies is disturbing. But, in substance, it is no different from most other state policies, which claim to serve the "common good." If the central planners know what is good for everyone, then it is not a stretch for them to know what will make everyone happy.

  The key error here is denial of the subjective nature of value, and of the rights of individuals to peacefully pursue their own interests, which may be different from those of the planners.

  Published: January 16, 2007 3:56 PM

• rainbow

  tim swanson..i highly advice u..to not waste ur time writing on topics u have no idea about....dont know how someone could go on without even having to visit the country.
  the people are very happy there. and thats whats all that matters.
  for u people out there. well u'll live..jealously is just a sin everyone has to deal with.

  Published: January 16, 2007 6:46 PM

• Gavin

  Happiness doesn't matter. It should be life, liberty, and property. Not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is highly subjective and is essentially irrelevant as to whether a society is moral, successful, and productive.

  It would have been better to criticized the countries economic policies. People who have lived in the communist hell of the Soviet empire, experienced much 'happiness' and joy in their life (with family, friends, etc) despite the worst situations.

  Published: January 16, 2007 7:14 PM

• Chhimi Wangchuk

  Happiness is not about making abundant money and giving luxury to family members; it is all about living a healthy and conscious life without being pampered or tampered, and just be satisfied by where you are. In a developed and industrialized world competition drives people crazy. Fantasized by wealth people resort to crimes in an attempt to persue wealth by means of indulging in criminal acts, and if a day goes by without the news of crime that's the actual news.

  In most of the country sides in Bhutan, we even do not lock doors in a believe that a stranger who is hungry or thirsty can help himself or herself find something to eat or drink. As such, Bhutanese society is built on the foundation of trust and respect -ultimately, the whole purpose of working to earn is to fill out your stomach. If you do not have one, there is probably no need to work. So what is the purpose of earning wealth in abundance at the mistrust of others? Afterall not kings, presidents and even saints took a peny with them when they die.

  In an affluent society there is lots of mistrust and envy and, of course, too busy that you don't even want to know a person living next door. It is rather selfish and every body want more than what their neighbors has. They are divorced from the nature. And probably there are people living in the cities who have been eating chicken through out their lives but if you ask where the chickens are grown, they might say "in the super market". Did these people find happiness while chasing after the wealth through out their live in the city?

  Published: January 16, 2007 7:16 PM

• David White

  Happiness is all that matters, Gavin, for it is that which alone has no end beyond itself, as Aristotle well knew, the only question being what constitutes the ultimate happiness and how to achieve it.

  As for Jefferson's substitution of "the pursuit of happiness" for "property," he essentially had no choice. For being a slaveholder in a slaveholding society, having property in other people was obviously a gross contradiction. Thus would he subsequently say, "I fear for my country when I reflect that God is just."

  Published: January 16, 2007 7:24 PM

• Gavin

  I suppose it depends on what means by happiness. Somethings could be true happiness and false happiness. If you define happiness upon achieving something you want and feeling satisfied, that is not what I am speaking about.

  Published: January 16, 2007 9:01 PM

• David C

  My understanding is that most people in this country don't pay taxes and their currency is linked to the Indian rupe. Basically they are to India what the Bahamas are to the US. Yes non taxes and a stable currency lead to happyness. (but they don't lead to long term stability unless you have other economic freedoms as well) And as for this ...

  Chhimi Wangchuk Siad, "Happiness is not about making abundant money and giving luxury to family members; it is all about living a healthy and conscious life without being pampered or tampered, and just be satisfied by where you are. In a developed and industrialized world competition drives people crazy."

  Well that's may be true. But between the taxes and the govt watering down our money all the time we are kept on a treadmill. That treadmill is a matter of state intervention and has nothing to do with free market forces. In fact, the US is in the post industrial era birthing into the information age. There is no reason in the universe why people couldn't a very nice life with out much stress at all. But people under attack have a hard time being happy. Even so, the US is clearly more free and more happy than most countries in the world inspite of all its
  wealth and industrialisation.

  Published: January 17, 2007 12:50 AM

• Keith

  "Did these people find happiness while chasing after the wealth through out their live in the city?"

  Yes, mostly.

  Published: January 17, 2007 5:53 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  It's important to note that the Declaration says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Happiness is not and cannot be guaranteed by a government, just the freedom to pursue one's own happiness.
  
  I'm glad to hear that the folks in Bhutan are happy. Their government's five-year-plans must be terribly ineffectual, or maybe they're happy in spite of their government.

  Published: January 17, 2007 11:55 AM

• anarkhos

  "Is it such a surprise that the things that make us laugh the loudest and provide our most memorable moments come rather unexpectantly?"

  The root of the word happiness is hap, which means luck or fortune. Happiness is simply good fortune. It's never guaranteed, nor could it ever be.

  Although unhappiness can surely be guaranteed...

  Published: January 17, 2007 6:58 PM

• Gavin

  People can be happy in spite of the government. I've spoken to people who had Ukrainian parents who lived through teh worst of communism and Stalin's persecutions. It was horrible, bad, and evil. It brough much sorrow. But, yet, many of them were able to be joyful people despite all the evil they had experienced. so, Yes! people are often happy despite the government. there isn't necessarily a causal connection between the gov. happy programs and the happiness of ordinary people.

  Published: January 18, 2007 7:07 AM

• editor

  your sarcastic and somewhat caustic article is not exactly appreciated by the bhutanese readers. and i do not believe worth commenting upon, except to correct your understanding of the concept of 'happiness' that is being referred to in bhutan.

  your catchy title 'by will or by writ' is itself misleading since neither will nor force are the tools for making the bhutanese people happy.
  Neither is GNH a replacement to GDP with all of their specific indicators. GNH in fact sits at the opposite end of the spectrum and hopes that the right priorities are in place before plans are made. It is not about measuring the result of the development actions but in guiding them. is there something wrong with that?

  bill milligan said 'For example if the US was not 90 miles from Castro, I bet the Cubans would be a lot happier'. maybe you need some perspective as well, in the reverse direction. remember however that perspective is not about surfing the web and seeing the world online. and passing caustic remarks.

  Published: January 18, 2007 7:32 AM

• editor

  another thing for all the readers who seem to have gotten the concept of GNH wrong, presumably by reading articles such as this one.

  Happiness is not 'thrust' on the people of bhutan. there are no 'happiness policies' or anything like that.

  look up the web for GNH and maybe you will find some better information on the concept and how it is being applied in bhutan.

  Published: January 18, 2007 7:36 AM

• Yilmaz Rona

  Well, mr editor, I followed your advice and did some reading, and I am aghast at what I found.

  In the website you linked to from your name I found many examples of people being hurt by the government. TI was particularly disgusted to see that farmers were facing fines for having excess land. I was also shocked to find that the king owned all the trees whether growing on "public" land or "private" land. I was darkly amused that nobody seemed to connect that policy with what appears to be a shortage of orchards.

  I read up on GHP on the the Centre of Bhutan Studies and was struck by their inability to actually define what it was!

  After I cut through the smoke screen of homilies and the hagiography surrounding the king and the aristocracy, what remained was a description of a conservative movement that is dedicated to maintaining feudalism for the benefit of the aristocracy by tightly controlling the education and the economic activity of the peasantry.

  What is lacking is a respect for genuine happiness, wherein an individual is permitted to choose the actions that are most attractive to them.

  Instead the aristocracy substitutes its judgment: declaring how much land a single family may farm, tightly controlling land use, education, money, trade etc.

  If I locked my children in a small room, limited their options, and limited their knowledge that there were options that were forbidden, I suppose that they would be happy too. A bird whose wings were clipped before it ever learned to fly will be quite content in its cage. However, it will also be denied the opportunity to act as a bird.

  What prosperity you have stems simply from the fact that you were too difficult a target to be looted by the British, Indians or Chinese! It is not because of any especially clever central planning on your part.

  In effect, the king and the aristocrats are running the country to make themselves happy, and then congratulating themselves that from their perspective things look good!

  I have two books to recommend to you.

  1) Introducing praxeology, the science of human action, which is a fancy way of saying that it studies how people satisfy their needs, An introduction to praxeology by M. Rothbard

  
  

  2) A book on the inescapable result of central planning - central planners
  enjoy life while those being ruled suffer. href="http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx">"Socialism" by L
  von Mises

  
  

  And to put it all together, href="http://mises.org/rothbard/value.pdf">The implications that
  praxeology has for Public Policy

  I hope you enjoy them

  Published: January 20, 2007 2:05 PM

• farouk

  i think happiness comes from self actualization. you dont have to make a big achievment but in the same time, i dont agree with the concept of inner happiness

  Published: March 3, 2008 1:54 AM