Will money buy YOU happiness?

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The idea that freedom or the desire for it is biologically encoded in us is bunk, drivel and, demonstrably incorrect.

Create a human "from nowhere" with no social influences to shape him, just perfectly in his natural state, and enslave him, put him in a cage all day, he will not be happy.

Stick him in a cage in the forest, let he watch the animals and trees exist beyond his grasp. Let see the berries and streams he cannot feed from. Let him watch the other creatures run about, but he cannot. He will BEG for freedom every time. It's embedded in us. It's preset. It's part of being human. That's a FACT.

Your talking about caging someone, of course they want to get out. You are oversimplifying in hopes that we are dumb enough to believe you.

Of course a person will want to escape from a cage in a torturous situation, so would any animal. That is a fact, but desire to escape isn't a desire for freedom in the sense we are talking about freedom. That instinct is natural, but that isn't a desire for freedom. A cow will desire to escape the cage you described, but lives a perfectly happy life when confined on one field with other cows.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Vic
What will you do without Bush to scapegoat for all the problems you see in the world?

I think you don't quite understand the definition of scapegoat. A scapegoat is one is who is punished for the errors of others. Bush has clearly made mistakes, huge mistakes, which have considerably weakened the United States.

Nope, I understand it perfectly, and you (ironically) demonstrated. You really think that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for all the things you blame him for? Hey, I hate him as much as the next guy (and I've never voted for him, thank you), but he is clearly a scapegoat.

What will you do without Bush to scapegoat for all the problems you see in the world?[/quote]
I think you don't quite understand the definition of scapegoat. A scapegoat is one is who is punished for the errors of others. Bush has clearly made mistakes, huge mistakes, which have considerably weakened the United States.
[/quote]
Nope, I understand it perfectly, and you (ironically) demonstrated. You really think that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for all the things you blame him for? Hey, I hate him as much as the next guy (and I've never voted for him, thank you), but he is clearly a scapegoat.[/quote]

Okay, merely writing "he is clearly a scapegoat" doesn't make it so. Also, the only ironic thing is you assume what I blame Bush for.

I believe the war in Iraq to be one of the greatest strategic errors in the history of our country. It has inserted the US into a Shia-Sunni rivalry, worsened our relationship with every Arab country in the region, destabilized the region, and shifted the balance of power to Iran. President Bush as the leader of our country is to blame for this strategic decision.

If you don't think he's a scapegoat then you either disagree with me on the definition of scapegoat or you disagree with me on the duties of Office of the President of the United States. After all, he's the "decider", right? I don't think any rational person can make a case for Bush being a "scapegoat" for this decision, but I'd love to hear you try.

As to topic:

I cite Matthew Perry as an example. During the production of the tv show Friends he was making $1 million per episode, yet he was very unhappy and ending up getting addicted to painkillers. In an old interview he stated he wanted a career like Tom Hanks. He wanted to be a movie star. So by his definition he was a failure and was unhappy.

Happiness is a state of mind.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

All money is is a method for people of differing cultures to more easily interact with each other. At the base level, money is just bartering. Bartering is pretty much as old as it gets.

I think we're getting a little off topic here, but maybe I'm just missing your point. Is there any chance we can bring this back more towards where our original conversation was going? Or am I missing a point you are trying to make?

Certainly money is what we use to secure our basic needs, but I think my question was more digging at what if securing your basic needs is enough to be happy?

(*boom* I think my head might explode)

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
That simply isn't true. People have STRIVED to survive, which often means sacrificing freedom in order to participate in a system where they are guaranteed benefits - protection and food mostly.

Freedom has been willing sacrificed for thousands of years for survival.

My questions from my earlier post still stand: If "Freedom" is biological, where is the gene?

No people who give up freedom for security were simply sold a trick by a salesperson (politician) so they could be taken control of. They were suckered.

Ayn Rand said it perfectly...

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be master."

Where is the freedom gene? Same place the gene the birds or any other instinct heavy animal is.

Ayn Rand got it wrong (over and over but I digress) true sacrifice is given never collected. True service is given never commanded.

The genes birds and every other living organism on the planet has are for survival yet, few have any freedom.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: slayer202
I think anyone who says no is either lying, or just doesn't realize it.

EVERYTHING is about money. Wouldn't you be happier if you didn't have to work? Or if you like your job, you can continue without really NEEDING it.

You can do anything you want, and give the people you love the things they need and want

were you much happier when you were 13 or when you were 16 and had your first job?

were you much happier when you got a real job over college wage jobs?

surely the best meal youve had in your life wasnt hte most expensive , right?

best night out wasnt at the most expensive posh bar/club ?


no money is bad. little money is bad. but beyond a comfort zone, MORE money is not necessarily better.

It seems that you're hitting the topic of responsibility in the first part of your post. Is living a responsibility free life better than a responsible one on a personal level. Probably depends on the person. We're not saying that the most expensive things in life are the best, we're saying that having the financial security and backing allows you to even enjoy those things to begin with. You can still live humbly even with vast wealth.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The idea that freedom or the desire for it is biologically encoded in us is bunk, drivel and, demonstrably incorrect.

Create a human "from nowhere" with no social influences to shape him, just perfectly in his natural state, and enslave him, put him in a cage all day, he will not be happy.

Stick him in a cage in the forest, let he watch the animals and trees exist beyond his grasp. Let see the berries and streams he cannot feed from. Let him watch the other creatures run about, but he cannot. He will BEG for freedom every time. It's embedded in us. It's preset. It's part of being human. That's a FACT.

Your talking about caging someone, of course they want to get out. You are oversimplifying in hopes that we are dumb enough to believe you.

Of course a person will want to escape from a cage in a torturous situation, so would any animal. That is a fact, but desire to escape isn't a desire for freedom in the sense we are talking about freedom. That instinct is natural, but that isn't a desire for freedom. A cow will desire to escape the cage you described, but lives a perfectly happy life when confined on one field with other cows.

Obviously, we have no idea if that's even true. But point made, point taken.

 

[IAteYourMother]

no

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
That simply isn't true. People have STRIVED to survive, which often means sacrificing freedom in order to participate in a system where they are guaranteed benefits - protection and food mostly.

Freedom has been willing sacrificed for thousands of years for survival.

My questions from my earlier post still stand: If "Freedom" is biological, where is the gene?

No people who give up freedom for security were simply sold a trick by a salesperson (politician) so they could be taken control of. They were suckered.

Ayn Rand said it perfectly...

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be master."

Where is the freedom gene? Same place the gene the birds or any other instinct heavy animal is.

I dunno how I missed this, but you are just being silly now.

You've been sold "a trick" too then. you give up freedom so you can be taken control of.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Your talking about caging someone, of course they want to get out. You are oversimplifying in hopes that we are dumb enough to believe you.

Of course a person will want to escape from a cage in a torturous situation, so would any animal. That is a fact, but desire to escape isn't a desire for freedom in the sense we are talking about freedom. That instinct is natural, but that isn't a desire for freedom. A cow will desire to escape the cage you described, but lives a perfectly happy life when confined on one field with other cows.

You see that's different.

I used a human example, but on a very "primitive level," for the sake of argument. As the intellect goes up in human, so does the expectation of freedom and the complexity.

The caveman will be content with not being cage. But the modern intellectual, the modern human, instead of see animals running free, or berries he cannot pick, will see books he is not allowed to read, or material things he is not allowed to have, or relationships that are forbidden. With the increased intellectual capacity, the desire to take part of activities/experienced of equal intellectual capacity will match it.

For the caveman it may be a water stream or berries to eat.

For us it may be a book, or a relationship, or a technology, or some expression of individuality.

I know for a 100% fact I'm right on this. You've been brainwashed by the collective.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Vic
What will you do without Bush to scapegoat for all the problems you see in the world?

I think you don't quite understand the definition of scapegoat. A scapegoat is one is who is punished for the errors of others. Bush has clearly made mistakes, huge mistakes, which have considerably weakened the United States.

Nope, I understand it perfectly, and you (ironically) demonstrated. You really think that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for all the things you blame him for? Hey, I hate him as much as the next guy (and I've never voted for him, thank you), but he is clearly a scapegoat.

What will you do without Bush to scapegoat for all the problems you see in the world?

I think you don't quite understand the definition of scapegoat. A scapegoat is one is who is punished for the errors of others. Bush has clearly made mistakes, huge mistakes, which have considerably weakened the United States.
[/quote]
Nope, I understand it perfectly, and you (ironically) demonstrated. You really think that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for all the things you blame him for? Hey, I hate him as much as the next guy (and I've never voted for him, thank you), but he is clearly a scapegoat.[/quote]

Okay, merely writing "he is clearly a scapegoat" doesn't make it so. Also, the only ironic thing is you assume what I blame Bush for.

I believe the war in Iraq to be one of the greatest strategic errors in the history of our country. It has inserted the US into a Shia-Sunni rivalry, worsened our relationship with every Arab country in the region, destabilized the region, and shifted the balance of power to Iran. President Bush as the leader of our country is to blame for this strategic decision.

If you don't think he's a scapegoat then you either disagree with me on the definition of scapegoat or you disagree with me on the duties of Office of the President of the United States. After all, he's the "decider", right? I don't think any rational person can make a case for Bush being a "scapegoat" for this decision, but I'd love to hear you try.

As to topic:

I cite Matthew Perry as an example. During the production of the tv show Friends he was making $1 million per episode, yet he was very unhappy and ending up getting addicted to painkillers. In an old interview he stated he wanted a career like Tom Hanks. He wanted to be a movie star. So by his definition he was a failure and was unhappy.

Happiness is a state of mind.[/quote]

As it's been said, money doesn't guarantee happiness, but it encourages opportunities to strive for goals that do make you happy. You're correlating him making alot of money to his own dissatisfaction with his goals and achievements. I'd also stay away from comparing artists with the general public as Hollywood typically instills unrealistic goals.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
That simply isn't true. People have STRIVED to survive, which often means sacrificing freedom in order to participate in a system where they are guaranteed benefits - protection and food mostly.

Freedom has been willing sacrificed for thousands of years for survival.

My questions from my earlier post still stand: If "Freedom" is biological, where is the gene?

No people who give up freedom for security were simply sold a trick by a salesperson (politician) so they could be taken control of. They were suckered.

Ayn Rand said it perfectly...

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be master."

Where is the freedom gene? Same place the gene the birds or any other instinct heavy animal is.

I dunno how I missed this, but you are just being silly now.

You've been sold "a trick" too then. you give up freedom so you can be taken control of.

While we're being silly, no one is really free. By that, I mean, are you really free to choose to not pay your taxes?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: her209
While we're being silly, no one is really free. By that, I mean, are you really free to choose to not pay your taxes?

You don't have to pay tax in your own country

Anyways, you guys are getting waayyy off topic :shocked:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Your talking about caging someone, of course they want to get out. You are oversimplifying in hopes that we are dumb enough to believe you.

Of course a person will want to escape from a cage in a torturous situation, so would any animal. That is a fact, but desire to escape isn't a desire for freedom in the sense we are talking about freedom. That instinct is natural, but that isn't a desire for freedom. A cow will desire to escape the cage you described, but lives a perfectly happy life when confined on one field with other cows.

You see that's different.

I used a human example, but on a very "primitive level," for the sake of argument. As the intellect goes up in human, so does the expectation of freedom and the complexity.

The caveman will be content with not being cage. But the modern intellectual, the modern human, instead of see animals running free, or berries he cannot pick, will see books he is not allowed to read, or material things he is not allowed to have, or relationships that are forbidden. With the increased intellectual capacity, the desire to take part of activities/experienced of equal intellectual capacity will match it.

For the caveman it may be a water stream or berries to eat.

For us it may be a book, or a relationship, or a technology, or some expression of individuality.

I know for a 100% fact I'm right on this. You've been brainwashed by the collective.

And that's where you're wrong because nobody is 100% right. Get off your high horse, challenge yourself a little and come out of that nice little world you've built for yourself.

An intellectual human does not want to be caged, there is no doubt. The intellectual does accept limits on his freedom for security and a steady food source, for that there is no doubt either.

But back to my original point, that same intellectual sees the world through his own lens, which incorporates biases from both his personal experience and the culture he grew up in.

That being said, I'm taking a break... got some thesis research to do.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Your talking about caging someone, of course they want to get out. You are oversimplifying in hopes that we are dumb enough to believe you.

Of course a person will want to escape from a cage in a torturous situation, so would any animal. That is a fact, but desire to escape isn't a desire for freedom in the sense we are talking about freedom. That instinct is natural, but that isn't a desire for freedom. A cow will desire to escape the cage you described, but lives a perfectly happy life when confined on one field with other cows.

You see that's different.

I used a human example, but on a very "primitive level," for the sake of argument. As the intellect goes up in human, so does the expectation of freedom and the complexity.

The caveman will be content with not being cage. But the modern intellectual, the modern human, instead of see animals running free, or berries he cannot pick, will see books he is not allowed to read, or material things he is not allowed to have, or relationships that are forbidden. With the increased intellectual capacity, the desire to take part of activities/experienced of equal intellectual capacity will match it.

For the caveman it may be a water stream or berries to eat.

For us it may be a book, or a relationship, or a technology, or some expression of individuality.

I know for a 100% fact I'm right on this. You've been brainwashed by the collective.

You seem to confuse desire with freedom.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: glutenberg

All money is is a method for people of differing cultures to more easily interact with each other. At the base level, money is just bartering. Bartering is pretty much as old as it gets.

I think we're getting a little off topic here, but maybe I'm just missing your point. Is there any chance we can bring this back more towards where our original conversation was going? Or am I missing a point you are trying to make?

Certainly money is what we use to secure our basic needs, but I think my question was more digging at what if securing your basic needs is enough to be happy?

(*boom* I think my head might explode)

Heh, no problem. My only point was that in the world that we currently live in (which is the one we need to compare), basic needs involves more than just eating. It involves shelter (which costs quite a bit of money), food (relatively low in monetary cost), health (extremely high monetary cost), security (which comes from money and the combination of the above), and achievement (which should be more easily attained when you're financially secure). I believe achievement is involved because it is tied directly to satisfaction. I'd say achievement is most relatable to enjoying the work that you do without the heavy fears of not making it in this world or not having enough to survive. Having a large sum of money just further guarantees that you'll have these modern, basic needs. Whether you need that much money or not is debatable but it gives a strong peace of mind.

 

[alkemyst]

You can't buy love or happiness...however; you will be a lot happier with money than poor...even if you are still depressed overall.

Same with love...she may not really love you, but bring enough cash to the table and she will make you think you are the only guy on earth.

Only poor losers claim they don't ever need money....you can have simple needs, but more money always helps guarantee you can meet them forever.

Å

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

It seems that you're hitting the topic of responsibility in the first part of your post. Is living a responsibility free life better than a responsible one on a personal level. Probably depends on the person. We're not saying that the most expensive things in life are the best, we're saying that having the financial security and backing allows you to even enjoy those things to begin with. You can still live humbly even with vast wealth.

financial security is happiness yes. its difficult to be smug and content with bills and debt. so yes little money is bad. above the basic necessities (food, shelter), more money is not better. people who live humbly with wealth... are indifferent to their wealth.. theyre not getting added enjoyment from having the wealth (nor would they be sadder if it was cut in half).

i was the happiest person in the world when i received a bicycle. then i was again the happiest person in the world when i inherited a used nissan. then i was the happiest person in the world when i bought a new s2000.

ill be happy when i have a ferrari maranello.... for a while, until i realize i cant yet have a ferrari that transforms into a submarine that could also fly and has frickin laser beams on its hood.

material enjoyment is relative. we enjoy what we have... for a while, until the novelty wears off and enjoyment turns to content

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: her209
While we're being silly, no one is really free. By that, I mean, are you really free to choose to not pay your taxes?

Yes. You could give up your citizenship and move to a tax free nation. The world hasn't completely been engulfed in socialist-thinking. There is still a large amount of freedom to be had and ability to evade opression in the world if you're willing to look for it.

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I think we're getting a little off topic here, but maybe I'm just missing your point. Is there any chance we can bring this back more towards where our original conversation was going? Or am I missing a point you are trying to make?

Certainly money is what we use to secure our basic needs, but I think my question was more digging at what if securing your basic needs is enough to be happy?

(*boom* I think my head might explode)

necessary reinforcement here. per original topic, i think money only serves to alleviate stresses from lack of financial security. beyond the point where one needs NOT to THINK about whether the next paycheck will cover the next set of bills is where money becomes irrelevant

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: glutenberg

It seems that you're hitting the topic of responsibility in the first part of your post. Is living a responsibility free life better than a responsible one on a personal level. Probably depends on the person. We're not saying that the most expensive things in life are the best, we're saying that having the financial security and backing allows you to even enjoy those things to begin with. You can still live humbly even with vast wealth.

financial security is happiness yes. its difficult to be smug and content with bills and debt. so yes little money is bad. above the basic necessities (food, shelter), more money is not better. people who live humbly with wealth... are indifferent to their wealth.. theyre not getting added enjoyment from having the wealth (nor would they be sadder if it was cut in half).

i was the happiest person in the world when i received a bicycle. then i was again the happiest person in the world when i inherited a used nissan. then i was the happiest person in the world when i bought a new s2000.

ill be happy when i have a ferrari maranello.... for a while, until i realize i cant yet have a ferrari that transforms into a submarine that could also fly and has frickin laser beams on its hood.

material enjoyment is relative. we enjoy what we have... for a while, until the novelty wears off and enjoyment turns to content

More money just insures you in the event that your money does get cut in half. Indeed, material possessions only lead to temporary and generally, artificial happiness, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether having a large sum of money allows you to have more freedom to experience the things or situations that genuinely make you happy. It's arguable if anything really makes anyone truly happy as all things become content as time passes.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: her209
While we're being silly, no one is really free. By that, I mean, are you really free to choose to not pay your taxes?

Yes. You could give up your citizenship and move to a tax free nation. The world hasn't completely been engulfed in socialist-thinking. There is still a large amount of freedom to be had and ability to evade opression in the world if you're willing to look for it.

Gatsby, there's no such thing as total freedom. Someone better, or richer, or whatever will always develop and will be able to opress your freedoms.

 

[marulee]

Money can buy you a happiness when you know where to spend it wisely. You do not pursue the money, but money will come to you when you are able to handle it. It means amount of money should be available to you depend on whether you are able to use the value of it, and when you would not allow it to increase that level of 'instant' happiness momentarily.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Gatsby, there's no such thing as total freedom. Someone better, or richer, or whatever will always develop and will be able to opress your freedoms.

I never said total freedom exists. But "large scale" freedom does indeed exist. Moreso than you think.

 

[Fritzo]

All I'm saying is people that are rich own jetskis.

I've never seen a person riding a jetski frowning.

Draw your own conclusion.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Gatsby, there's no such thing as total freedom. Someone better, or richer, or whatever will always develop and will be able to opress your freedoms.

I never said total freedom exists. But "large scale" freedom does indeed exist. Moreso than you think.

What's your exact definition or value from freedom?