Reflection 11

Most foreign policy is framed in terms of a few basic concerns: security, prosperity, and liberty. But, at least in the individually-oriented, liberal discourse of the West, the pursuit of these ends rests upon a basic assumption that security, prosperity, and liberty contribute to the self-interest of the individual. We assume that this trinity of policy goals helps satisfy the fundamental motivating purpose of humans, the desire happiness. In many cases, it is necessary to achieve our ultimate ends through specific, quantifiable proxies. But in orienting the goals state, myopically pursuing narrow proxies can lead us astray. It seems only logical that the policy of the state should be informed by a broad understanding of our ultimate goal.

The overwhelming conclusion, summarized here by David G. Myers, of psychologists is that humans define happiness subjectively, in relation to other people, to previous experiences, and to expectations. Although it is often assumed that money brings happiness, this is not always true: although wealthy people and wealthy countries are happier, people and countries do not become happier in the long run when they become wealthier. A state cannot increase long-term happiness by reaching a given absolute threshold; people will simply adjust to a new standard living. Happiness requires constantly increasing (or at the very least not decreasing) our quality of life. 

Happiness is constituted both by fixed-sum and by positive-sum games. The power relationships between individuals constitute a fixed zero sum, because for one individual to gain social power another individual must lose social power; the state cannot improve the social power of the whole. Communism fails precisely because it envisions a society not bounded by human nature, in which relationships are entirely egalitarian. It is necessary to acknowledge the innately competitive facet of human nature, and to channel competition into sectors -- such as the market -- where it generates external public goods. Other dimensions of happiness, however, are variable in sum: contrasts between the present and the past, and between the real and the imagined. It is debatable whether states can effectively emphasize variable-sum definitions of happiness. But there is little question that the economic and diplomatic policy of a state can ensure that the variable-sum relationships always, or almost always, come out positive. 

Expanding material resources seems crucial to any effective "happiness policy," and, with modern technology, this is eminently achievable. But maximizing collective happiness does not necessarily entail maximizing the overall magnitude of capital; instead, it would emphasize maximizing the diffusion of capital expansion. As long as an individual's standard of living is increasing relative to his or her subjectively defined standards, he or she is happy -- regardless of whether the gain is great or barely visible. Currency allows individuals to redeem objective, shared measures of prosperity towards increasing a subjectively defined standard of living. But, because it is objective, it is conducive to measurement. Money, as Marx argued, allows individuals to measure their standards of living against each other even when they hold divergent goals; it lures individuals into measuring fixed-sum dimensions of happiness. An effective happiness policy counteracts this tendency. First, by engaging in redistributive activities that mask differences in wealth, and second, by providing means for individuals to circumvent currency in achieving subjective goals -- promoting an active, public, civic and cultural life and public goods that foster participation in that public community.