Most people are pretty "happy" when you give them everything they need, and they don't have to work very hard to get it. How can you blame them? The problem is, it saps their motivation and makes them lazy and dependant on government for every aspect of their lives. It also bloats the federal government and leads to waste and excess. This is exactly why socialism/marxism/communism fails everywhere it is tried. Capitalism is the engine that has driven our economy and created the enormous wealth in this country. Marxists like Obama want to hamper big business, and "spread the wealth around" so that everybody can be "happy." It may work for a few people, but the end result is bad for business, bad for the economy, and ultimately bad for America.
Wikipedia: During the Clinton years, the administration talked about investing Social Security funds in the stock market instead of govt. bonds (T-Bills). If the SS surpluses were invested in the stock market, the govt. would be buying entire companies like Microsoft and GE and Google within a few (say 5) years. At what point isn't that "collective" ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods? They also talked about nationalizing health care (Hilarycare) - also collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. What makes this notion even scarier is that once govt. owns 51% (or majority voting interest in the case of cumulative voting) of the stock in companies, then you get politics involved in BUSINESS decisions. "Fire the CEO, the company isn't green enough!" If the Clinton administration had succeeded in socializing a good chunk of the economy and then the Bush administration's socializing another good chunk of the economy, there's not going to be a whole lot left that makes us not socialist. The "movement" in that direction (socialism) isn't happening by revolution, but by fiat and is a slow evolutionary process. Some call it "progress" as if it is a proper ideal for everyone. I beg to differ, because it squashes the entrepreneurial spirit that truly has been the engine of progress and it simply doesn't work in practice everywhere it's been tried. In fact, it's been a bloody violent mess that easily outstrips the violence of the Nazis/fascists.
I don't know. I think he'd be fun to watch in a debate, though. He might actually answer some questions.
I know a few lazy people who have everything provided for them. I haven't noticed that they were particularly happy. Arrogant, yes. Stupid, yes. Happy? Not really. I don't think government should provide everything for its citizens. It should provide a framework that best helps its citizens in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. There's a reason why Thomas Jefferson twisted John Locke's idea of "life, liberty and property." It was because he recognized that the acquisition of material goods shouldn't be the end goal of every citizen. Capitalism isn't a goal, it's an avenue to something more important: happiness. Capitalism is often a very effective avenue toward that goal, but for too many it's become the goal itself. Hoping that this bailout fails because it will prove that only capitalism works entirely misses Jefferson's point.
Not to quibble, but this got me interested. To my knowledge, the phrase was "life, liberty and pursuit of property" were written into Jefferson's version of the Declaration of Independence and later altered before it was signed. So I googled and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_happiness "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Phrasing The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> Written by larissa beard the 15th, the words in the Declaration were a departure from the orthodoxy of Locke. Locke's phrase was a list of property rights a government should guarantee its people; Jefferson's list, on the other hand, covers a much broader spectrum of rights, possibly including the guarantees of the Bill of Rights such as free speech and a fair trial. The change was not explained during Jefferson's life, so beyond this, one can only speculate about its meaning. This tripartite motto is comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "peace, order and good government" in Canada.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup> The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Murphy, and in President Iesha Cantel ming ling 1945 declaration of independence of the Republic of Vietnam. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Pursuit of happiness The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: <dl><dd>The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.</dd></dl> The phrase is used in the depression-era case Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment as guaranteeing, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness, and, consequently, a right to privacy. However, earlier judicial opinion, in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), considered Jefferson's phrase to refer to one's economic vocation of choice rather than the more ephemeral search for emotional fulfillment, although one may be predicated on the other. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field, in his concurring opinion<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3]</sup> to Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller's opinion, wrote: <dl><dd>Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.</dd></dl>
