Can Money Buy Happiness?Submitted by His American Majesty on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 12:00
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.