At the end of the day, Richard Layard asserts that there is sometimes a schism between freedom and happiness and it is debatable which of these government policy should persue. [:S]
What he means is, whether people should be free to pursue their own destines or whether the government should try follow a consequentialist ethic based on the maximization of “happiness”. A potential response is, besides the ones outlined above, that such maximization is not of actual happiness at all, but of some meaningless abstraction that ignores the special characteristics that define individuals and only attends to the most base understanding of the term.
-Jon
On the happiness topic: evolutionary speaking, happiness is not the desired goal in the life of a creature, but the pursuit of happiness is. Usually our ancestors died before they got the chance to do anything meaningful with their lives, and for most people it was a fact of life that comfort, health, security and the like were just ideals that could only be partially attained, part of the time. For them, that was the limit of happy and it was enough to pass on their genes.
Thus, it’s very difficult for us at this stage in our evolution to properly appreciate our lifestyle. Basically we’re fulfilled cavemen.
If hedonism is what you’re after, then why stop at taxes? For many people ignorance is known to be bliss. Let’s promote that too.
There is no conflict between a free society and the hedonistic ideals. If people want to be “happy” in the sense the article suggests, they are free to make their own group/cult/whatever and they can pay an “el comandante” (or a computer) to manage their lives in every minute detail so they won’t have to suffer by having choices and decisions. The Amish come to mind.
They are not free, however, to tell everyone else what to do.