Sign in to follow this  
anthony

Who was it?

Recommended Posts

Who said:

"We have no more right to consume happiness without making

it 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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said:

"We have no more right to consume happiness without making

it 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it." -GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, Candida

From this site: http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/happiness_quotes.html

I 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikee, You spoilsport, you! damn Google.

GBS, that Fabian and socialist, defending wealth production.

Ah, bur was he?

(Party pooper...)

grump, grump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

--Brant

instead of the plugged nickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The flawed thinking is not the point. Who said it?

"We have no more right to consume happiness without making

it 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 Chatzaf

And who would you choose between a tax collector and a rent collector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 that

happiness 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said:

"We have no more right to consume happiness without making

it 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaw had some harsh things to say about those who consume more than they produce, too:

http://youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQ

I 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this