0 votes

Can Money Buy Happiness?

I can assure you this topic is not going to be anything near what you were expecting when you clicked it.

The age old adage ... Money can not buy happiness ... is a foundation of so called law (ie. a term I can't stand because I do not like magical words) in a legal system founded upon Christian or semi-Christian values.

One might be thinking, what the hell is HAM talking about with this nonsense about money can't buy happiness. Surely some people on DP are at least familiar with citations like:

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. -Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491;

The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime. -Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489;

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights. -Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946;

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution; and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberty of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof. -Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943);

The state cannot diminish Rights of the people. -Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516;

No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. -Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (1943);

If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity. -Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (1963);

One still might be thinking what in the heck is HAM talking about though with this money can not buy happiness nonsense. In simple terms:

Engaging in activities to pursue happiness are natural and fundamental rights which are not valid OBJECTS of legislation or valid SUBJECTS of regulation and interference.

Do you see any relevance of money can not buy happiness yet? How about if I were to say ...

If one is engaged in an activity to derive a private gain or profit it can not be said they are pursuing happiness because money can not buy happiness.

Do you see any relevance now? Taking that into consideration do the following statements make more sense?

Extraordinary use is using the public highway as a place of private gain or to derive a profit. Ordinary use is using the public highway in the ordinary course of life pursuing happiness.

Clearly, the former is a privilege whereas the latter is a natural and fundamental right. The same principle can be applied to any object or subject. The fact that a good principle can be consistently applied to any object or subject is the essence of what makes something a rule ... a rule of law.

The absence of an intent to gain or profit is evidence of pursuing happiness.

The absence of a payroll record or payment to verify gain is evidence of a lack of intent to derive a gain or profit.

Pursuing happiness vs. gain is the first legal division of human action when classifying any activity.

Premise: Humans act.
Premise: The object of human action is that which satisfies self.
Premise: Love of money is the root of all evil.
Premise: Money can not buy happiness.
Premise: Do no harm.

Conclusion: If an object of human action does not include a gain or profit and does no harm, then any activity pursuing said object is to engage in a natural and fundamental right not subject to interference.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interesting Statement

So you are saying that since the gov is working on the premise that money cannot buy happiness, then any action that has a profit motive is excluded from the Constitutional right of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness (Originally "Property" actually)?

In any case this reminds me of the Aesop Rock song 9-5ers Anthem:

"We the American working population
Hate the fact that eight hours a day
Is wasted on chasing the dream of someone that isn't us
And we may not hate our jobs,
But we hate jobs in general
That don't have to do with fighting our own causes.
We the American working population
Hate the nine-to-five day-in/day-out
When we'd rather be supporting ourselves
By being paid to perfect the pasttimes
That we have harbored based solely on the fact
That it makes us smile if it sounds dope..."

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I am not suggesting any action that has a profit motive

is excluded. I am asserting such actions are considered differently.

Consider language like the right to pursue happiness and be rewarded for industry versus the right to pursue happiness and pursue industry. Obviously there is a radical difference from the former and latter. Under the exclusion maxim (ie. inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another) the former language implies the pursuit of industry is not a right but one does have a right to the rewards of industrial pursuits.

Is there a gain when one engages in a voluntary transaction to acquire property when each party benefits? Under what circumstances could it be said one party gains and the other does not?

Clearly, if one steals to acquire property there is a gain.

Acquisition of property is treated different legally than using property.

One may seek to acquire property with an intent to realize a gain where no gain was realized at property acquisition because a gain can not be realized until possessed property is used.

There is a radical distinction between possession and use.

There is also a difference between realizing a private gain without relying upon public resources versus realizing a gain using any roads, laws, currency, intellectual property, registered property, or other benefit of a state.

For instance, awards from a civil lawsuit are considered taxable income ...

Finally, it is not my intent to focus on state trespasses for gain or profit and the minutia of money. I am not an advocate or shill for the rich. It is my intent to discuss state trespasses while pursuing happiness when no harm has been done because no state has any just authority derived from any sovereign people to commit such a trespass.