The Happiness Economy - Part 2

OK.  So, what do I mean about "happiness" and what does it have to do with the idea of transforming economics?


The cleric, Richard Cumberland (1631–1718) introduced the idea that, as humans, we have a natural right to the "pursuit of our own happiness."  Around the same time, John Locke (1632-1704), the so-called "Father of Liberalism," expanded upon this as a Baconian scholar.  In his 1693 Essay Concerning Human Understanding he says that "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness."  Eighty-three years later, as we all know, Thomas Jefferson, with the help of Ben Franklin and others, wrote the Declaration of Independence, and one of the most famous sentences ever written (my emphasis): "We hold these truths to be self-evident [Franklin's contribution], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


These guys were not hedonists.  They were not "pleasure seekers," although they did enjoy themselves when they could.  That was the point.  Mostly, though, they were deists and rationalists.  And when Franklin changed Jefferson's wording to reflect their view that the right to happiness was "self-evident," it expressed so simply what philosophers had on their minds during the Enlightenment (the 18th Century--aka "the Age of Reason").  After Newton and Leibniz (both, philosophers AND mathematicians) simultaneously discovered the calculus and showed that everything we see in nature can be described by an extremely accurate form of mathematics - simplifying the old method of using the less accurate trigonometry of the Greeks - a rational God seemed to emerge from nature.  The Western world was waking up after 1500 years heavy handed religious rule over all behavior.  They saw secular government as the liberator of mankind (except for their own slaves of course), and planned to make "the American experiment" a catalyst for reform and a model for all future governments. 


These men were students of science and nature, and believers in an un-wrathful Deity who ran the universe in a well-thought-out way.  It was suddenly apparent, for the first time since the Eleusinin Mystery cults, that human beings were meant to be free to explore their world with mind and body, and only this could lead directly to "true and solid happiness."  Even the Bible, which has a paucity of information about secular happiness was re-examined for its role in life.  The word "blessed" in Jesus' beautiful "Sermon on the Mount" can be interchanged with "happiness"...

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down.  His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them, saying: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.  Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.  Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.  Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.  Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.'

Matthew 5:1-12

It was recognized that the moral lessons for individuals put forward by Jesus himself (rather than the oppressive churches that grew up to MISrepresent him), could fit perfectly with the ideas of guiltless scientific exploration and philosophical ("philosophy" being a unifier of religion and science) enjoyment of the world around us. 


Today, the emphasis put forward by political and economic forces in this country, and thus around the world, focuses almost entirely on the "Life" and "Liberty" aspects of the thinkers of Enlightenment.  "Happiness" has been marginalized as a fluffy afterthought.  However, the subsequent Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States are meant to more clearly define and categorize civil and criminal law in regards to all three fundamental natural rights.  And that NEEDS to be remembered.


I'm going to take a side road now for the rest of this post to highlight the problems with drug prohibition law--specifically cannabis policy, since that is what I have learned the most about when it comes to the abuse of our constitutional rights and the restrictions placed on our right to pursue happiness. 


In the last 42 years, several significant rights have been curtailed to fight what was originally Richard Nixon's "War on Drugs."  What was touted as a healthful social policy was, in hindsight, just a deflection away from the Vietnam War problems.  And since the "evil," "leftist" counter culture were being so vocal about their ojection to the war in Southeast Asia - and heavily into cannabis use at that time - what better way to discredit them?  The Drug Enforcement Agency (or, DEA - also formed by Nixon - himself, a criminal: see The Watergate Story - in 1969), now has the authority to violate our self-evident rights, like the 14th Amendment, which states clearly...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Cannabis, which, though proven to have medical benefits, is still listed as "Schedule I" in another of Nixon's inventions: the Controlled Substances Act, which states (my brackets and underlines)...

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse ["abuse" is an ambiguous term now considered to be completely synonomous with any kind of "use" itself].
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Statements B and C, have been found to be indisputably inaccurate...


A 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report: Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, says about the cannabinoids in cannabis, on page 4 [my bold and underline]...

The combination of cannabinoid drug effects (anxiety reduction, appetite stimulation, nausea reduction, and pain relief) suggests that cannabinoids would be moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting.

And many states, including Maine, have contradicted federal policy by legalizing medical use of marijuana.  Yet there is always a barrier to reforming drug policy, usually erected by the DEA.  When a serious attempt was made to reschedule cannabis - see the Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Petition (pdf) - DEA testimony was accepted as more medically relevant than any actual medical studies or reports, and the petition failed.  The fox (DEA) guarding the henhouse (drug policy based on medical research), has an obvious conflict of interest in this way, since they would lose a large portion of their funding, were federal law changed by rescheduling cannabis.  What does this mean?  It means, unequivocally, that Richard Nixon is postumously still in charge of drug law in this country.  And neither the voters, nor the scientific medical establishment, can seem to even make a dent in it.


Even though this prohibition was not the result of popular action, but by rather morally conservative political factions, any police officer is ALWAYS considered to be "reasonable" in his search for the substance.  Though he needs "reasonable suspicion" to search your house, his NOSE is often his only "objective" way of suspecting the presence of cannabis.  And because HE is a police officer and YOU are not, a whole bunch of other violations and abuses of power can then be exercised in his desire for your prosecution.  He is motivated by the need to meet arrest quotas for such "drug offenses" and his department feeds at the trough of federal funding especially assigned for this purpose.  He has every reason to make sure you are found "guilty," once he starts the process.  It often begins with the violation of your Miranda Rights.  Here is an explanation for the intention of Miranda Rights, in case you've ever wondered...

Miranda Rights:

Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, an individual has the right not to incriminate him- or herself. The United States Supreme Court has held that, in order to comply with the Fifth Amendment, an individual who is in custody and being interrogated must be provided their Miranda warnings.

If law enforcement does not provide a defendant who is undergoing custodial interrogation their Miranda warnings, the prosecution may not use any statements derived from that custodial interrogation in the prosecution’s case in chief at trial. Being in custody does not necessarily mean that an individual is in handcuffs or at a police station. Whether a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda is determined by whether a person has been deprived of their freedom in a significant way. If law enforcement officers have not complied with their obligations under Miranda, a defendant may bring a motion to suppress the statements. If the motion to suppress is successful, the statements cannot be used against a defendant in the prosecution’s case in chief.

Even if a defendant has been abused of their Miranda rights, any statement made by a defendant may not be introduced into evidence at trial unless the statement was made voluntarily. A coerced confession may not be used against a defendant. It is the prosecution’s burden to demonstrate that an individual knowingly and intelligently waived their privilege against self-incrimination. A motion to suppress can be brought on the basis that either the waiver of Miranda rights was not voluntary, or that it was not knowing and intelligent. Attorneys at Nolan, Armstrong & Barton have successfully moved to suppress statements in murder cases, economic espionage, homicide, petty theft, domestic violence and DUI cases.

The typical Miranda warning is as follows...

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

But if/when you are coerced into potentially incriminating yourself at the scene, it can be a short trip to a full search of you and your belongings.  Saying the wrong thing can set you up for "reasonable suspicion."  The problem is that (again) a police officer may say that you forfeited your Miranda Rights and agreed, through a facial expression or other affirmative gesture, to the search.  There is precedent for this in California.  If you have a chance check out the interview with Attorney Eric Hart at the Psychedelic Salon Podcast, you can get an idea of why this happens.  The point being: Whether you are hiding something or not, you must specifically, but civilly, say to the officer that he does "not have permission to search" your house, automobile or person.  Otherwise, even a simple gesture can be invented or "interpreted" to justify the search.


The English lawyer, Sir William Garrow (1760–1840) developed the idea of (my emphasis) the "presumption of innocence," a notion that is not found in the Constituion, but is accepted internationally.  This requires that the "burden of proof" be placed upon law enforcement, rather than the accused.   Yet, many times, instead, there is an assumption by law enforcement that you are guilty until proven innocent, leading to the potential permanent seizure of your cash and/or property, even if you are never prosecuted for any crime (my underlines), as in this instance...

A police dog scratched at your luggage, so we’re confiscating your life savings and you’ll never get it back.” In 1989, police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston’s Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings, accumulated by working as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor for more than 20 years. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. The police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back.
 

Furthering what I was saying in Part 1 of this thread, people who rely on certain ideologies that they feel are fundamental to social stability should not be changed (such as capitalism being seen as the final word and the ideal economic system) often become willing to change the world around them in order to support these ideological positions.  These people believe that the good intentions of capitalism and civil rights sometimes need to be "amended" to fit the now-outdated primary philosophies that they cling to.  We saw this with the abuses of capitalists who are in denial about the destructive nature of the original ideal of "capitalism," set forth by Adam Smith, to today's economy.  We also saw how capitalism is actually hostile towards free markets.  And now in this post we see the same kind of "amending" going on with the abuse of the civil rights set forth by the Constitution in the government's drug policies.  But all that is politically acted upon is easily transposed back into economic terms.


So, what does all of this have to do with "The Happiness Economy"?  Well, first of all the DEA is a great example of an entrenched, para-military (remember the submerged male instinct?) organization that receives huge amounts of money from the Federal Government.  This amount has increased steadily.   Consider the following...

Fiscal Years 1990-1997

• Total budget authority for DEA increased nearly 90 percent (from $558 million in FY 1990 to $1,054 million in FY 1997).
• The number of DEA special agents in the Southwest border region increased 37 percent (from 587 in FY 1990 to 806 in FY 1997).

From FY 1992 through FY 1997, DEA funding for the Southwest border increased 55 percent (from $82 million in FY 1990 to $127 million in FY 1997).

Fiscal Year 1998

In the FY 1998 budget request the DEA budget totals $1,146 million, an increase of $92 million (nine percent) over FY 1997 ($1,054 million). At the FY 1998 level of funding:

• The DEA budget will account for seven percent of the National Drug Control Budget request for FY 1998 ($15.917 billion).
• DEA funding for the Southwest border will total $157 million or about 14 percent of the total DEA budget in FY 1998 ($1,146 million).
• The number of DEA special agents in Southwest border region for FY 1998 will total 902, an increase of 96 special agents (12 percent) over FY 1997 (806 special agents).

And this money is being spent to fight a losing "war"--everyone knows this!  I strongly encourage everyone who reads this post to take an hour or so off and listen very carefully to this lecture by Jonathan Ott:  Crimes Against Nature the Civil War Against Drugs.  It is BY FAR the most informative, factual, single source I have ever heard on this subject.  Download it...study it.  You will never be able to defend US drug policy after you understand what Ott presents. 


How many other failed programs continually get more and more money, just for failing--with zero hope for success, while their appointed agencies exhibit such extensive corruption, violating natural, civil and even human rights?  And no one - including our dear selves, it seems - ever considers raising a real political stink about this fact.  Instead, we waste our collective energy running around scratching our heads trying to determine whether we are"liberals" or "conservatives"; Republicans or Democrats.  It should be quite clear, though, to rational people, that wasting money is wasting money--no matter which of the Republicrat sides of the isle they associate themselves with.  These are OUR tax dollars. 


I don't know about you all, but this institutionalized hypocracy does NOT make me happy.  Nor, does the fact that whether I'm doing something against the law or not, I can be arrested and detained without cause, searched without warrant and lose all of my property and life savings without conviction. 


The economics of this unhappy situation is unsound, patently unfair, highly prejudicial and ultimately facilitates an endless and completely arbitrary hemorrhaging of public money, at a time when we need every last dime just to run the basic infrastructure of the country.  Now, combining politics with economics.  Just look at prison figures.  Over 50% of all incarcerated non-violent prisoners are drug offenders.  And it costs $18,000-31,000 per federal prisoner, to hold each of them for only one year.  I have never even made $31,000 per year in my life.  The most I ever made was at my last job as a supervisor was $30,000 per year.  Yet, non-violent drug offenders are costing that much to incarcerate. 

Combine all this ridiculousness with fact that the US locks up more of its own citizens than any other First World nation.  Drug policy is mainly responsible for this.  Yet, illicit drug usage remains the same.  If making cannabis illegal is such a brilliant concept why do countries who have decriminalized it (like Holland), have LESS drug use, per capita.  And seen over-all, illicit drug use is a non-problem globally.  Only 3.3% to 6.1% of the adult population worldwide use illicit drugs.  To give some perspect 25% of the adult population uses legal tobacco (a substance that kills around 300,000 people per year in the US alone).  Direct use of cannabis has never physiologically killed anyone in 10,000 years.  For a surprising and fairly well-balanced report, download: The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's (UNODC) World Drug Report 2011 (pdf).

People finding happiness or relief for medical problems - which can also bring happiness - from the use of cannabis (and this is only one example of the many ways that happiness is sought, obviously) are being hunted down and shut away in prisons, with their property being seized and their reputations being permanently marred, by their own tax dollars, and by an organization (DEA) that consistently FAILS in its mission to rid the country and the world of "drugs"--and cannabis IS the most likely substance to be arrested for.  Yet, never, not one single time, scientifically, has a negative independent study of cannabis held up to the ocean of positive ones.  Nevertheless, unscientific, politically-motivated, para-military, irrational, hypocritical, economically wasteful public policy is maintained.  This is not a rational way for the country to spend money.  It is also depriving its citizens of their right to "cognitive liberty" (visit: the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, or CCLE, for more information on this concept).  I promise you that in the next 5-10 years, cognitive liberty will be the new battle cry for human rights activists (like myself).  An overview of the CCLE's mission is (my underline)...

...elaborating the law, policy and ethics of freedom of thought. Our mission is to develop public polices that will preserve and enhance freedom of thought into the 21st Century.

 

Freedom from slavery.  Universal sufferage.  Protection for sexual preference.  Most of us see the moral reasoning behind these things, but there is also an economic advantage to each of them.  And their acceptance is part of an ever-progressing trend toward a happier humanity; one with less discrimination, more diversity and more money for all (something I will address in greater detail the next post on this subject).  It is a sad fact that human beings - now that they are achieving freedom in the outside world - have to fight tooth and nail for the most fundamental freedom of all: the freedom to think what they want, in the way that they want.  It must become so.  And it WILL become so. 

I intend to continue doing my part, that you (the reader) might similarly be inspired to educate yourself, and then take action in your own way to make this a more balanced world; one with the (1) material resources that make life comfortable and (2) the intellectual freedom to review and improve upon your own inner life, thereby enhancing the lives of everyone on this ever-shrinking world of ours--both are required for the coming of The Happiness Economy.


[Please check in for the next post on this thread.]