anthony Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Who said:"We have no more right to consume happiness without makingit than we have to consume wealth without producing it."?I'd be interested in wild or educated guesses.Not - Churchill, Adam Smith, Rothbard (or Ayn Rand.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Who said:"We have no more right to consume happiness without makingit than we have to consume wealth without producing it."?I'd be interested in wild or educated guesses.Not - Churchill, Adam Smith, Rothbard (or Ayn Rand.)Happiness is NOT consumed. Happiness is an internal state which can have a variety of causes. Happiness can be earned in the sense that a conscious effort is required to have it. It can also be an accident. Windfalls are freebies. We don't have to "earn" them. The beauty of the sunrise and sunset come to one just by having his eyes pointed in the right direction...Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 The flawed thinking is not the point. Who said it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The flawed thinking is not the point. Who said it?I am afraid I do not know, but I do know who said: "What good is happiness, it can't buy money" (Henny Youngman)Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 Heh. Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 "We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it." -GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, CandidaFrom this site: http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/happiness_quotes.htmlI googled "Consume happiness quote", it was the third entry.The first google hit was a Helen Keller quote page but only contained the first part of the sentence: “No one has a right to consume happiness without producing it.”I liked many of the Helen Keller quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 Mikee, You spoilsport, you! damn Google. GBS, that Fabian and socialist, defending wealth production. Ah, bur was he? (Party pooper...) grump, grump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'm sorry Tony, I should have read your request more carefully. "Educated guesses"...I'm afraid I don't have many of those. Sorry to spoil the fun, just trying to be helpful. I didn't realize you already knew, I take everything literally and just try to solve the problem.The point is happiness is earned, like wealth, and it IS consumed. You have to keep earning it. If you are a producer and not a looter that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 Yes, surely. But what's engrossing is from 'whence it comes'. GBS defending wealth?! I'm assuming it cannot be. He stood for 'the worker' all the way - insisting that everybody be paid equally, whatever you did. Wouldn't you agree with my conclusion that he saw the worker - literally - as the "producer"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Yes, surely. But what's engrossing is from 'whence it comes'.GBS defending wealth?! I'm assuming it cannot be. He stood for 'the worker'all the way - insisting that everybody be paid equally, whatever you did.Wouldn't you agree with my conclusion that he saw the worker - literally - as the "producer"?I even supected the quote might be from Karl Marx, since he saw the workers as the real 'producers' of the capitalists' wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'm assuming GBS is a communist: the "producer" in his mind is the worker, who is the only one with the "right" to consume wealth. The "Rich", are the exploiters who have no right to consume the wealth of the workers. They have produced nothing. We know this is ass backwards but explains his comment. I agree with your interpretation. The left ALWAYS turns everything on its head. All the elements are there but cause and effect twisted beyond belief. Like the big big O's speeches, sometimes I don't know whether to cheer or cry. Well, I cry, because I know "truth" is nothing but an abstraction for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'm assuming GBS is a communist: the "producer" in his mind is the worker, who is the only one with the "right" to consume wealth. The "Rich", are the exploiters who have no right to consume the wealth of the workers. They have produced nothing. We know this is ass backwards but explains his comment. I agree with your interpretation. The left ALWAYS turns everything on its head. All the elements are there but cause and effect twisted beyond belief. Like the big big O's speeches, sometimes I don't know whether to cheer or cry. Well, I cry, because I know "truth" is nothing but an abstraction for him.With all due respect to your pro-capitalist inclinations, there are those who merely collect rent on what they -legally own- and have not done a damned thing to add to the wealth of the society. Mere ownership (which can be inherited as well as produced) gives one a claim on the assets of others, particularly in rental situations. Another case is those who buy copyrights long after the creator of the thing copyrighted has passed on. These folks are non-productive rent collectors.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 "Mere ownership" ?!?! Evidently you're not a strong advocate of property rights (without which other rights are meaningless). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 "Mere ownership" ?!?! Evidently you're not a strong advocate of property rights (without which other rights are meaningless).I make a distinction between being productive and not being productive. The Rent Collector has a legal right to his property and I am not disputing that. But if he was not responsible for the creation of the item being rented out, he is collecting on the basis of a legal privilege, not on his productive efforts. He is not being paid for anything he -did-. If I had a choice between saving a productive prole or a rent collector from drowning I would save the prole.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Two things are important for economic progress, capital has to be created, capital has to be preserved. Good capital managers are NOT "not being productive". My understanding of "Rent collector" in the negative economic sense, are those engaged in the business of maintaining non-productive and unnecessary regulatory requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If you have to Google for the answer, zip it. If you don't we'd like to know so we can give you compliments, laurels and gold.--Brantinstead of the plugged nickle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basimpson22 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The flawed thinking is not the point. Who said it?"We have no more right to consume happiness without makingit than we have to consume wealth without producing it.""Mere ownership" ?!?! Evidently you're not a strong advocate of property rights (without which other rights are meaningless).I make a distinction between being productive and not being productive. The Rent Collector has a legal right to his property and I am not disputing that. But if he was not responsible for the creation of the item being rented out, he is collecting on the basis of a legal privilege, not on his productive efforts. He is not being paid for anything he -did-. If I had a choice between saving a productive prole or a rent collector from drowning I would save the prole.Ba'al ChatzafAnd who would you choose between a tax collector and a rent collector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 So Brant, you're only interested in public school rote learning? I like Einstein who doesn't memorize what he can look up. I already apologized to Tony.Edited because: removed implied expletive because Brant may have been joking, or perhaps inebriated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I think he was joking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 Yes, surely. But what's engrossing is from 'whence it comes'.GBS defending wealth?! I'm assuming it cannot be. He stood for 'the worker'all the way - insisting that everybody be paid equally, whatever you did.Wouldn't you agree with my conclusion that he saw the worker - literally - as the "producer"?I even supected the quote might be from Karl Marx, since he saw the workers as the real 'producers' of the capitalists' wealth. Yes, Xray - On the evidence, Marx would have been the best bet on the little I've read of his.Now the cat's out of the bad - not a problem Mike, Brant ;) - it is interesting how Shaw thought thathappiness is a commodity, that can be "consumed" - from others' share, is the implication.Happiness, as a zero-sum game?Despite his protest to the contrary about making and producing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Who said:"We have no more right to consume happiness without makingit than we have to consume wealth without producing it."?I'd be interested in wild or educated guesses.Not - Churchill, Adam Smith, Rothbard (or Ayn Rand.)I have not read the thread, so my honest guess is Pablo Picasso.OK, I read the posts: George Bernard Shaw. Interesting. He is much hated on the right. I think that the real reason has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with being intelligent and observant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Shaw had some harsh things to say about those who consume more than they produce, too:http://youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQI could have found a better video, I suppose, but the ones I did find on YouTube have been edited all out of shape. So I chose the one with the most views (under the idea that it will most likely not be removed). In the video above, Shaw's appearance has parts edited out, so here is the full quote (from Wikipedia:You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself. There are those who think this, and his famous call for the development of a humane killing gas to be used in gas chambers (before WWII) was tongue-in-cheek, but as far as I know, he never said or intimated it was humor. I, myself, am inclined to take him at his word.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 Yes - stuff they didn't tell us in college about GBS. My quick scan of Shaw in Wiki throws up phrases like "elective breeding" and "Shavian eugenics".The Road to Hell, and all that.God save us from the sincere humanitarian, armed with Social Darwinism and any kind of power.It occurs to me once again, that the 'social engineering' we're all painfully experiencing is just a hop and a skip from eugenics.I mean, why stop here? Let's engineer the individual. The future collective will thank us.Omelette, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now