In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government

More well-known for his other book, Losing Ground, Murray has a broader aim in this work. He states: “First, I will associate myself with a particular set of views,” he says bluntly. “Reduced to their essentials, these views are that man acting in his private capacity—if restrained from the use of force—is resourceful and benign, fulfilling his proper destiny; while man acting as a public and political creature is resourceful and dangerous, inherently destructive of the rights and freedoms of his fellowmen. I will explain these views using the language and logic of the American Founding Fathers. Next, I will suggest that if one accepts that set of views of man, the way we assess social policy is pushed in certain show more directions.”

The basic question he asks is: “What is happiness?”

There are two philosophical traditions, one ancient and one more recent, that assumed the question could be answered definitively and attempted to do so. The first stemmed from Aristotle, focused on the nature of the good life, and attempted to define and rank all aspects of happiness. The second, which arose in the eighteenth century, stressed individual psychological satisfaction, but both traditions agreed substantially on how men should pursue happiness—develop those talents you have, do your job well, raise a family, contribute to the community—yet though they disagreed profoundly on such issues as whether or not an outsider could rank “happiness” for others.

It is only with the failings of the 20th Century, that we have social policy, and not only have they failed but they have unintended consequences. Murray maintains that government allows us to pursue happiness, but it can never hope to ensure happiness for citizens. show less

Interesting read, about how happiness can influence policy, but I think Dr. Murray was out of touch both then and now about what affects real people other than himself.

Interesting read, about how happiness can influence policy, but I think Dr. Murray was out of touch both then and now about what affects real people other than himself.

Interesting read, about how happiness can influence policy, but I think Dr. Murray was out of touch both then and now about what affects real people other than himself.

Interesting read, about how happiness can influence policy, but I think Dr. Murray was out of touch both then and now about what affects real people other than himself.

Charles Murray is one of my favorite contemporary thinkers. He's always challenging. I took from this book the idea that incrementalism can be a key to happiness. Several years ago I heard him speak at the City Club and wish I had spoken with him.

Silly, like most libertarian manifestos