4 ms·
"[D]epending on your politics", indeed. It's not self-evident that everyone should be equally happy. It's not even self-evident that happiness should be the ove
by ellyagg 16y ago
"[D]epending on your politics", indeed. It's not self-evident that everyone should be equally happy. It's not even self-evident that happiness should be the overriding concern of our existence. I've sacrificed my happiness many times in the name of other principles, especially truth. And, it wasn't "sacrifice temporarily for greater happiness later" or any other such rationalization.
- frankus 16y agoI agree, but that everyone should be equally happy is not what the book argues at all. Frank's argument boils down to the fact that a lot of categories of consumption are zero-sum games, and that if played with lower stakes people could afford more important things with the money they save. For instance, if every SUV owner has to have 20-inch wheels to appear wealthy, SUV owners aren't as a whole are worse off than if 18-inch wheels were considered a sign of wealth and they all had health insurance. So the argument is that there are a lot of consumption arms races in the economy where some sort of coordinated de-escalation would benefit all of the players. The coordination he proposes is a progressive consumption tax imposed by the government, which I would agree is probably superior to the current progressive income tax.