02/06/2006 11:15:12 am
Cameron And Well-Being. A few days ago, the British Conservative leader David Cameron gave a speech where he said that improving the sense of well-being in society should be the main aim of politics. It is an interesting speech, founded in a new and popular branch of science somewhere between economics and psychology. Naturally, nobody objects to the idea that it is good if people are happy. But should it really be the main aim of politics?

This science has become politicised by the left already. This despite strong evidence that people are happier in free, capitalist, societies than anywhere else. Thus, it might be an interesting idea for a conservative politician to reclaim it. And indeed partly he does, by not proposing the same policies as the left. But if you copy the idea that it is a political responsibility to make people happy, you have copied the statist version of this science.

One can argue definitions here and there, and debate what evidence the science actually produces. But in ideological terms, sooner or later it all comes down to one question: Should the state do what it can to make us happy or should it give us the freedom to pursue happiness? The difference might seem small, but it is fundamental. Either we do as we like - including not seeking happiness - or the state tries to run our lives towards this centrally planned aim of collective happiness.

I believe that Cameron chose the wrong one of the two options.

Read the entire speech here - >