Happiness doesn’t come from equality of outcomes… Nor does prosperity

Flopping Aces ^ | 09-29-15 | Vince

[Starman417]

For years we’ve been hearing stories of schools scrapping dodge-ball, sports leagues eliminating scoring and schools passing students despite their lack of academic achievement. The reason, we’re told, is to protect the self esteem of students who might otherwise be harmed by coming up on the short end of a competitive stick.

Of course none of this is a surprise to anyone who has watched as liberals have transformed the United States economy from a dynamic prosperity creating machine to a middling debt addict where the middle class finds itself on its knees as the government takes care of those at the top and the bottom of the economic spectrum.

Tangentially… I occasionally play the lottery. If the jackpot posted on the sign on the road from downtown flashes over $200 million I’ll consider plunking down a dollar or two for a ticket. Of course I’ve never won but I find it entertaining to wonder for a brief moment what I might do with my windfall.

At the same time I’ve often wondered, if I actually did win the lottery, would I really be happy? Sure, I’d no doubt have lots of fun spending my millions, but would I really be happy? I’m not so sure. That might sound strange, but the history of many lottery winners seems to indicate that lottery money doesn’t bring happiness.

Here’s how these two tangential things are related. Happiness can’t be given to someone. Nor can self esteem. Yes, someone can give you money, and it can ameliorate some problems, but that doesn’t buy happiness. In a similar way, a parent or a school can tell a child they are wonderful, that grades or scores don’t matter… but the kids know better.

Happiness doesn’t come from having, it comes from earning. That’s the fundamental problem liberals don’t understand, whether it’s telling kids there are no winners or losers in sports, or the government giving people money and food stamps and phones and housing vouchers. Liberals focus on outcomes rather than opportunities. They seek a de jure egalitarian society rather than one governed by effort and innovation. It’s not enough for everyone to have the same chance at success based on some test or competition. No, the resulting output, whether it’s bank loans, jobs or college acceptance letters, has to reflect the hue and composition of the larger population or the test is by definition racist or sexist or some other ist. (While such a framework is supposed to apply in boardrooms and law enforcement, for some reason it never seems to apply in the NBA or the NFL…)

Liberals think that if they somehow make everyone equal, everyone will be happy. Once again they’re wrong. The Soviet Union and modern North Korea might be the best examples of “egalitarian” societies in modern history. And in both cases the people were indeed equal… but that equality was / is an equality of poverty, of desperation, of despair.

Just as there’s a difference between “equality” of outcomes and equality of opportunity, there’s a fundamental difference between earning something and being given it. Compare the way tenants of housing projects take care of their homes with the care shown by those who pay mortgages, or compare the level of pride expressed by a kid at winning a bronze medal to that of a kid being issued a participation medal. It’s natural to value something more when it’s earned, rather than when it’s given. Hard work doesn’t guarantee happiness, but it can instill pride, a sense of accomplishment and a sense of having done something of value, all things which are important elements of happiness.

[Slyfox]

Happiness comes from living a virtuous life.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Socialism is the equal distribution of misery.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Internal equity and external equity. Employees are almost NEVER told about those terms.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Happiness comes from living a virtuous life.”

I agree entirely. It's so very true, and is the best solace when life is hard (although leading a virtuous life is amongst the hardest challenges).

In the context of government intervention, the role of government is to help make sure that people play by accepted rules, not to decide the outcome. For the same reason we need locks on our doors, and people have weapons for self-defense, there also have to be protections against theft of ones efforts.

If the person with the best idea, or who worked the hardest and completed the most work, or who was most innovative, always got credit for their talents and efforts - that would be great. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, and people steal intellectual property, collude in the workplace to diminish those they see as competitors or don't like, lie, cheat, etc - just like those athletes who use corked bats or performance enhancing drugs. Because those things are part of human nature there have to be safeguards against corruption and cheating. Government does have a role there, but that role has been expanded so much that it's almost in another galaxy at this point.

[Slyfox]

Ben Franklin said that our Republic was designed for a virtuous people if we can keep it.

We now have a president in office who is the epitome of vice and not just vice but that type of vice that "appears" to be virtuous.

Is it any wonder that things are so bad?

This is what the Bible refers to as the "Mystery of Iniquity" - how evil can wheedle its way into positions of authority without us knowing exactly how evil it really is.

I can't help but think that it is all happening for a reason and that Obama and his ilk will be like a sponge and at some point they will all be sucked into a vacuum forever, or burnt like weeds. Take yer pick.