To the Editor:
Prof. Daniel Gilbert’s essay about the relationship of certainty to happiness is a powerful counterargument to one of the Republicans’ most cherished dogmas: People are better off keeping their money and deciding how to spend it, rather than having the government tax it away to spend on federal programs.
When buying a house, a refrigerator or a new car, people want choices. But when it comes to critical issues like health care, unemployment benefits or retirement income, choosing among multiple insurance and investment programs, all competing in the “market,” presents tremendous uncertainty. Most people would rest easier in the knowledge that these vital basic needs were met universally through competently run, well-regulated government agencies, solidly backed by taxes.
Mr. Gilbert’s observations help explain why, in studies of happiness and life satisfaction, the countries of northern Europe repeatedly top the list, well ahead of the United States. These countries thrive on capitalism underpinned by a safety net of socialist institutions that relieve their people of many of the uncertainties and anxieties that plague us here.
Raymond B. Clayton
Stanford, Calif., May 21, 2009
Note from KBJ: This letter reminds me of John Rawls's original position, as set out in A Theory of Justice (1971). Which principles of justice one would choose in the original position depends crucially on one's attitude toward risk. Risk averse people such as Rawls choose egalitarian principles. Risk neutral people choose utilitarian principles. Risk preferring people choose libertarian principles. Rawls has given us a black box. The output (principles of justice) depends on the input (attitude toward risk).
