happiest countries in the world

[Slydel]

Even though this chart is outdated, recent studies have shown that Democratic-Socialist countries have the highest standard of living and happiness compared to the rest of the world, such as France, Sweden, and Norway. I wouldn't be surprised if America is near the bottom, since most Americans are materialistic and equate their happiness with wealth; our crumbling economy is going to perpetuate this unhappiness. As well, America's government favors the rich by exploiting the poor and middle class (the vast majority), by making them pay for military campaigns and corporate welfare (most recently, the $700 billion Wall street bailout).

Socialism is basically just a system of moderation. I agree that America is setting itself up for profound misery due to its focus on materialism, but until the money that feeds that materialism runs out it will still be high on any list of happiness. When the well dries and materialism fails - and it always does by natural necessity - we will enter adulthood, at which point we would do well to recognize the importance of moderation.

It is almost like you are a supporter of socialism. Yes, moderation is good, but when banks start selling loans to people that can not afford them, when people start taking home equity lines of credit out because their house somehow is worth so much more, when people want everything and banks believe that they should, when people believe that the almighty dollar is more important than staying home with their children, then yes we have a problem. The U.S. can have/is a great capitalistic society when people know what the **** living within their means is all about. These people and banks have driven up the price of homes because they are willing to buy houses that cost too much, willing to work too much. I told my father today that...what is point of having everything if you are so damned worried about how you are going to pay for it? Having a socialist country in the U.S. means that everyone that has done the correct things (purchased a house in the right price range, saved their money, have an emergency fund, saved for retirement) will have to pay through the asshole for those that have screwed the economy up and will need our assistance. No thank you. I live below my means. I am not materialistic and believe that capitalism is the best way to go.

My point is, a capitalistic society is better. Living in the U.S. for most would be great, If people were smart enough to take care of themselves. There is much more opportunity. A socialistic society is UNFAIR to those that do take care of themselves. Happy or not, you reap what you sow. If you are too much of a dumb ass to take care of yourself, at least let those people that do take care of themselves be happier.

[Starcadia]

I tend to agree with you, but I also feel - my personal opinion - that the vast majority of people do not have the self control required to moderate themselves with their consumption, and therefore a system of governance is required to do it for them. Parenting, in other words, because most people in a free market are effectively children (the greedier and more gluttunous they are, the more childlike they are). We should be free, of course, but only free to a point. That point is highly complex, admittedly. I wouldn't want the government to control, for instance, what sort of drugs I put in my body, but I would want it to step in if I were consuming beyond my means.

The countries that have been consistently doing the best have socialistic tendencies, but are still highly capitalistic. It's not an either/or situation.

[Slydel]

Yet you do not see my point, if you act like a child you get rewarded like a child well...because you act like a child. If you have sex, as rewarding as it may be, you must suffer repercussions for the act, be it AIDS, hepatitis, herpes, or a child (depending on if you want a child). You and everyone else must be accountable for your actions. If you get hepatitis because you made a poor choice, does that mean that I must take care of you? If you spend all of your money because you feel that you need to keep up with the neighbors, does that mean that I need to take care of you? In the same token, should I be hindered to live my free life because of other peoples actions? I think not. If you believe that you should be forced to take care of people that make poor choices, not that you could not help other people out if you want, than you are way off base. In a society where freedom is valued most, more people may be unhappy because they make poor decisions, but that is what they chose. In a society where freedom is valued most, the greatest happiness can be achieved, not in a society where people are forced to take care of people that make poor decisions. A society should allow for the greatest freedom for its people as long as it does not impede the potential of ones fellow man from trying to achieve the most happiness as well.

[Starcadia]

I think conceptually your total freedom idea is a good one. But what if the majority of people are making poor choices and you are forced to help, like we may have to do with this bailout? And what about total freedom when the money runs out? How will anarchy work then? It will become even more animalistic than what we have now, which is already a system that allows - no, encourages - people to be animals, rather than one that promotes the potential for human sophistication?

Plus, given enough time, a system that promotes sophistication will ultimately have less and less poor decision-making to contend with. The bar tends to rise for poor decision-making, as we've seen in systems that incorporate socialistic standards. In an anarchy, that bar has no downward limit, so you'll end up being forced to help anyway.

[Dead Rabbit]

I tend to agree with you, but I also feel - my personal opinion - that the vast majority of people do not have the self control required to moderate themselves with their consumption, and therefore a system of governance is required to do it for them. Parenting, in other words, because most people in a free market are effectively children (the greedier and more gluttunous they are, the more childlike they are). We should be free, of course, but only free to a point. That point is highly complex, admittedly. I wouldn't want the government to control, for instance, what sort of drugs I put in my body, but I would want it to step in if I were consuming beyond my means.

The countries that have been consistently doing the best have socialistic tendencies, but are still highly capitalistic. It's not an either/or situation.

That has got to be the most ironic thing I have ever read considering that, by your very own definition of the human condition, it will be other “people’ with all of those same “child like” tendencies that will be doing the parenting.

With all due respect, I am appalled how much trust you put in elite puppet masters while giving no strategy on how we should pick and choose who will be the elite and who will be the sheep. My God, dude, who will select our “philosopher king”?

[Dead Rabbit]

Even though this chart is outdated, recent studies have shown that Democratic-Socialist countries have the highest standard of living and happiness compared to the rest of the world, such as France, Sweden, and Norway. I wouldn't be surprised if America is near the bottom, since most Americans are materialistic and equate their happiness with wealth; our crumbling economy is going to perpetuate this unhappiness. As well, America's government favors the rich by exploiting the poor and middle class (the vast majority), by making them pay for military campaigns and corporate welfare (most recently, the $700 billion Wall street bailout).

Doesn't France riot bit much to be so happy?

Maybe this list is a better list....suicide rate. Funny thing is I'm 50%Lithuanian...
1 Lithuania 70.1 14.0 40.2 2004
2 Belarus 63.3 10.3 35.1 2003
3 Russia 61.6 10.7 34.3 2004
4 Kazakhstan 51.0 8.9 29.2 2003
5 Hungary 44.9 12.0 27.7 2003
6 Guyana 42.5 12.1 27.2 2003
7 Slovenia 37.9 13.9 25.6 2004
8 Latvia 42.9 8.5 24.3 2004
9 Japan 35.6 12.8 24.0 2004
10 South Korea 32.5 15.0 23.8 2004
11 Ukraine 43.0 7.3 23.8 2004
12 People's Republic of China
(selected rural areas) 20.4 24.7 22.5 1999
13 Sri Lanka N/A N/A 21.6 1996
14 Belgium 31.2 11.4 21.1 1997
15 Estonia 35.5 7.3 20.3 2005
16 Finland 31.7 9.4 20.3 2004
17 Croatia 30.2 9.8 19.6 2004
- Serbia and Montenegro 28.8 10.4 19.3 2002
- Hong Kong 25.2 12.4 18.6 2004
18 France 27.5 9.1 18.0 2003
19 Switzerland 23.7 11.3 17.4 2004
20 Austria 26.1 8.2 16.9 2005
21 Moldova 29.3 5.2 16.7 2004
22 Poland 27.9 4.6 15.9 2004
23 Czech Republic 25.9 5.7 15.5 2004
24 Uruguay 24.5 6.4 15.1 2001
25 Luxembourg 21.9 7.4 14.6 2004
26 People's Republic of China (selected rural and urban areas) 13.0 14.8 13.9 1999
27 Denmark 19.2 8.1 13.6 2001
28 Cuba 20.3 6.6 13.5 2004
29 Slovakia 23.6 3.6 13.3 2002
30 Seychelles N/A N/Ay 13.2 1998
31 Sweden 19.5 7.1 13.2 2002
32 Bulgaria 19.7 6.7 13.0 2004
33 Germany 19.7 6.6 13.0 2004
34 Trinidad and Tobago 20.9 4.9 12.8 2000
35 Romania 21.5 4.0 12.5 2004
36 Suriname 17.8 6.4 12.1 2000
37 Iceland 17.7 6.2 12.0 2004
38 New Zealand 19.8 4.2 11.9 2000
39 Bosnia and Herzegovina 20.3 3.3 11.8 1991
40 Canada 18.3 5.0 11.6 2002
41 Norway 15.8 7.3 11.5 2004
42 Portugal 17.5 4.9 11.0 2003
43 United States 17.9 4.2 11.0 2002
44 Australia 17.1 4.7 10.8 2003
45 India 12.8 8.0 10.5 2002
46 Chile 17.8 3.1 10.4 2003
47 Singapore 12.5 7.6 10.1 2003
48 Ireland 16.3 3.2 9.7 2005
49 Netherlands 12.7 6.0 9.3 2004
50 Kyrgyzstan 15.0 3.0 8.9 2004
51 Argentina 14.1 3.5 8.7 2003
52 Turkmenistan 13.8 3.5 8.6 1998
53 Spain 12.6 3.9 8.2 2004
54 El Salvador 12.2 4.2 8.1 2003
55 Mauritius 12.7 3.6 8.1 2004
56 Zimbabwe 10.6 5.2 7.9 1990
57 Thailand 12.0 3.8 7.8 2002
58 Saint Lucia 10.4 5.0 7.7 2002
59 Belize 13.4 1.6 7.6 2001
60 Nicaragua 11.0 3.7 7.3 2003
61 Italy 11.4 3.1 7.1 2002
62 United Kingdom 10.8 3.3 7.0 2004
63 Costa Rica 12.1 1.6 6.9 2004
64 Republic of Macedonia 9.5 4.0 6.8 2003
65 People's Republic of China 6.7 6.6 6.7 1999
66 Panama 11.1 1.4 6.3 2003
67 Israel 10.4 2.1 6.2 2003
- Puerto Rico 10.9 1.8 6.2 2002
68 Ecuador 8.6 3.7 6.1 2004
69 Malta 7.0 4.9 6.0 2004
70 Uzbekistan 8.1 3.0 5.5 2003
71 Colombia 8.2 2.4 5.3 1999
72 Venezuela 8.4 1.8 5.1 2002
73 Brazil 6.8 1.9 4.3 2002
74 Albania 4.7 3.3 4.0 2003
75 Mexico 6.7 1.3 4.0 2003
76 The Bahamas 6.0 1.3 3.6 2000
77 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 6.8 0.0 3.4 2003
78 Greece 5.2 1.2 3.2 2004
79 Bahrain 4.9 0.5 3.1 1988
80 Paraguay 4.5 1.6 3.1 2003
81 Tajikistan 2.9 2.3 2.6 2001
82 Georgia 3.4 1.1 2.2 2001
83 Guatemala 3.4 0.9 2.1 2003
84 Philippines 2.5 1.7 2.1 1993
85 Kuwait 2.5 1.4 2.0 2002
86 Armenia 3.2 0.5 1.8 2003
87 Dominican Republic 2.9 0.6 1.8 2001
88 Azerbaijan 1.8 0.5 1.1 2002
89 Peru 1.1 0.6 0.9 2000
90 São Tomé and Príncipe 0.0 1.8 0.9 1987
91 Barbados 1.4 0.0 0.7 2001
92 Iran 0.3 0.1 0.2 1991
93 Jamaica 0.3 0.0 0.1 1990
94 Syria 0.2 0.0 0.1 1985
95 Antigua and Barbuda 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995
96 Egypt 0.1 0.0 0.0 1987
97 Haiti 0.0 0.0 0.0 2003
98 Honduras 0.0 0.0 0.0 1978
99 Jordan 0.0 0.0 0.0 1979
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995

[Starcadia]

I tend to agree with you, but I also feel - my personal opinion - that the vast majority of people do not have the self control required to moderate themselves with their consumption, and therefore a system of governance is required to do it for them. Parenting, in other words, because most people in a free market are effectively children (the greedier and more gluttunous they are, the more childlike they are). We should be free, of course, but only free to a point. That point is highly complex, admittedly. I wouldn't want the government to control, for instance, what sort of drugs I put in my body, but I would want it to step in if I were consuming beyond my means.

The countries that have been consistently doing the best have socialistic tendencies, but are still highly capitalistic. It's not an either/or situation.

That has got to be the most ironic thing I have ever read considering that, by your very own definition of the human condition, it will be other “people’ with all of those same “child like” tendencies that will be doing the parenting.

With all do respect, I am appalled how much trust you put in elite puppet masters while giving no strategy on how we should pick and choose who will be the elite and who will be the sheep. My God, dude, who will select our “philosopher king”?

Now that's just downright poor argumentation, not to mention angry. And maybe a little tipsy? I hope I'm not your best target for a brawl.

[Dead Rabbit]

I tend to agree with you, but I also feel - my personal opinion - that the vast majority of people do not have the self control required to moderate themselves with their consumption, and therefore a system of governance is required to do it for them. Parenting, in other words, because most people in a free market are effectively children (the greedier and more gluttunous they are, the more childlike they are). We should be free, of course, but only free to a point. That point is highly complex, admittedly. I wouldn't want the government to control, for instance, what sort of drugs I put in my body, but I would want it to step in if I were consuming beyond my means.

The countries that have been consistently doing the best have socialistic tendencies, but are still highly capitalistic. It's not an either/or situation.

That has got to be the most ironic thing I have ever read considering that, by your very own definition of the human condition, it will be other “people’ with all of those same “child like” tendencies that will be doing the parenting.

With all do respect, I am appalled how much trust you put in elite puppet masters while giving no strategy on how we should pick and choose who will be the elite and who will be the sheep. My God, dude, who will select our “philosopher king”?

Now that's just downright poor argumentation, not to mention angry. And maybe a little tipsy? I hope I'm not your best target for a brawl.

Tipsy, yes. Off some of my own mead I brewed last year and bottled this evening.

Angry? Not in the least! Seriously, why would you say that?

Poor Argumentation? I find it interesting you were unable to point out the fallacy.

According to you: Most people are stupid.

We both obviously agree: People/a person make up a government.

While it is deductively possible the tiny minority of smart people could somehow make up government, you give no insight on how we will pick them.

In fact, inductively, the odds would be there would be a ton of dumb asses acting as our nannies.

Dude, I defy you to point out where my logic is faulty. Hell, I bet our resident logician Zero would agree with at least my logic operating on your premises.

[holnrew]

Doesn't France riot bit much to be so happy?

It's more protest than riot (granted a minority will get out of control). And they only do it so much because they know it works.

[Starcadia]

DR - There are advantages and disadvantages to both of our angles. Neither one is perfect, and we can't have both, but I think we should try. You've probably found just as I have that the best answer is always in the middle.

[Dead Rabbit]

DR - There are advantages and disadvantages to both of our angles. Neither one is perfect, and we can't have both, but I think we should try. You've probably found just as I have that the best answer is always in the middle.

No dumb ass nannies! I like to smoke cigars, and puff blunts. I'm never late for work. If I lose this job, I'll grow a garden and raise motha****en chickens. Yes, I'm tipsy. Don't give the man more.! LESS Government !!!!

[Starcadia]

DR - There are advantages and disadvantages to both of our angles. Neither one is perfect, and we can't have both, but I think we should try. You've probably found just as I have that the best answer is always in the middle.

No dumb ass nannies! I like to smoke cigars, and puff blunts. I'm never late for work. If I lose this job, I'll grow a garden and raise motha****en chickens. Yes, I'm tipsy. Don't give the man more.! LESS Government !!!!

I'm not a fan of nannies either. Seems England, for one, is drowning in them. But I will say the police do come in handy when they're needed, just as long as they're not abusing their privileges.

[Dead Rabbit]

DR - There are advantages and disadvantages to both of our angles. Neither one is perfect, and we can't have both, but I think we should try. You've probably found just as I have that the best answer is always in the middle.

No dumb ass nannies! I like to smoke cigars, and puff blunts. I'm never late for work. If I lose this job, I'll grow a garden and raise motha****en chickens. Yes, I'm tipsy. Don't give the man more.! LESS Government !!!!

I'm not a fan of nannies either. Seems England, for one, is drowning in them. But I will say the police do come in handy when they're needed, just as long as they're not abusing their privileges.

Cops don’t dictate how you live. They just enforce the law, created by someone who dictates the way you live.

Hey man, I don’t even remotely think I have the answers, but your philosophy about government is


1. illogical. I proved that.
2. scares the living hell out of me.

[Starcadia]

1. No, I just didn't want to argue with you. It doesn't make sense to argue, because no system of government is perfect for everybody. I have Swedish and Norwegian blood in my veins. If you spent some time there you might see things differently. I see your ideas as idiotic, you see mine as idiotic. How can we have a proper debate? It would be like two football teams sitting in the middle of the field and "working it out." The game needs to continue, although in this one there will be no winners or losers, just players.

2. Yours doesn't scare me so much as it resembles a bachelor pad with duct tape on the La-Z-Boy, bong water stains on the carpet, the latest issue of Gunz 'n' Ammo on the rented table, a telemarketer on the phone, and a reality show repeat on satellite TV. Which means we could be great friends, but I wouldn't want to live there.

[Premium Parrots]

..........JERRY... JERRY... JERRY... JERRY............