Don't presume what makes you happy will make someone else happy. In fact, it might have the opposite effect.

Here's an example.

I have a point of view on religion that is not in any way compatible with the point of view of other people I have met. Yet, I can see that their religion makes them happy. For some reason, this happiness they experience compels them to bang on my door and tell me how happy I could be if I adopt their religion because it makes THEM happy.

That makes me very, very, very unhappy.

What eventually made ME happy about this whole encounter was that once they came knocking on my door and my wife used a particular combination of words that caused the color to drain from the faces of our persistent visitors, followed by a hasty, and apparently permanent, retreat. We've not seen them again for several years.

I am reminded, by this encounter, that the golden rule - "Do unto others as they would do unto you" is utter nonsense.

You see, that's the point - happiness is subjective, and "the golden rule" is not an effective guide to attaining it in any way, because what I want and what you want aren't the same and, at a global scale, we can't agree on a religion or philosophy that might serve as an objective standard by which we can run our lives and "attain happiness."

Hmm, I would say that religiously speaking you are correct, but philosophically you have set the limit too short.

IMHO, if we can at least agree that we are entitled to the same pursuits of happiness as anyone else is, then we share at least one common philosophical aspect, which is that we are both free to pursue whatever it is that makes us happy so long as such pursuit doesn't impinge on the rights of others. I'll admit it is a balancing act most of the time, but I don't really see any good alternative.

Based on the notions that form our bill of rights, unless you are truly opposed to the American way of life, I'd say we share a common philosophy at least about social happiness, if not spiritual. Sadly, I too have fallen victim to certain religious practices that tend to interfere with my happiness at times. There are remedies, both personal and social, for this sort of action, and it seems you have effectively availed yourself of one method.

Muslim culture in this country is vastly different in it's evangelistic approach. Conversion by holding a knife to the throat is simply unacceptable here, unlike other places.

Religion often times comes into conflict with individual rights. It is a difficult thing for most communities to allow non-conformity to persist amongst a minority when the majority share common beliefs and practices. The word infidel, heathen or heretic carry with them the connotation of unacceptance that usually result in expulsion or punitive acts in the majority of world history. Ours is one of the best examples of a society of tolerance on record, yet we still struggle to abide those practices most foreign from our own mainstream christian lifestyles.

Before we get too serious on the religion aspect…


… that cracked me up!

No, then we can't agree. Here is a list of things that make me happy, and don't affect anyone else. Of these things I have pursued, all of which have been, at one time or another, or currently are, illegal, somewhere on the earth.

1. When I'm home and not driving anywhere, I like to drink a beer now and then.
2. I like to shoot a gun in my back yard into my bermed, safe, range.
3. I've read The Catcher In the Rye (Saliger), Slaughterhouse 5 (Vonnegut), Lolita (Nabikov) and the Quran and the King James revision of the Bible.
4. I had consensual sex before I was married.
5. I have gambled.
6. I have carried a lock-back pocket knife on an airplane post 2001.
7. I have made copies of DVD's I own.
8. I have dug holes on my property without seeking a permit.
9. I have hunted on my property on a Sunday
10. I have transported raw milk for my own consumption into the state of New York.
11. I have seen pornographic images.
12. I have driven a vehicle with an expired inspection.
13. I raise and slaughter my own poultry on my own property.
14. I have lived with a woman without being married.
15. I have friends who are openly homosexual.
16. I have failed to pave the first 24 feet of my second driveway.

...the list goes on an on...the litany of "victimless crimes" that are created because one person's pursuit of happiness does not meet some other standard of ethics or expectations goes on and on and on. 'm not even going to digg deep into the clear and obvious influence of religion and business interests on government other than the posit that any law based on aligning behavior to the rulebooks of any one organization is suspect, because in the end, another organization will have a differing view and conflict will arise.

So what was the Combination of words? This phrase might make me happy

Is unpasteurised milk smuggling illegal in New York State?

Wow, whats the criminal tariff if caught smuggling this prohibitive substance into the State of New York? Is it like the situation with cannabis in the UK. If you can prove, having been caught with enough only for your only personal consuption, then you can avoid a criminal prosecution.

Gee, I hope the Feds aren't listening in

Man I missed five items on your list. Does that make me better, or less?
1. When I'm home and not driving anywhere, I like to drink a beer now and then. Check
2. I like to shoot a gun in my back yard into my bermed, safe, range. Check
3. I've read The Catcher In the Rye (Saliger), Slaughterhouse 5 (Vonnegut), Lolita (Nabikov) and the Quran and the King James revision of the Bible.Check, not at the same time
4. I had consensual sex before I was married. Check
5. I have gambled. Check
6. I have carried a lock-back pocket knife on an airplane post 2001. Check
7. I have made copies of DVD's I own. CD's yes, DVD's no.
8. I have dug holes on my property without seeking a permit. Check
9. I have hunted on my property on a Sunday. Nope
10. I have transported raw milk for my own consumption into the state of New York. Don't drive in NY
11. I have seen pornographic images. Check
12. I have driven a vehicle with an expired inspection. Hmmm, I don't recall
13. I raise and slaughter my own poultry on my own property. That was Mom
14. I have lived with a woman without being married. Check
15. I have friends who are openly homosexual. Oh, come on, this is CA, Check
16. I have failed to pave the first 24 feet of my second driveway. Pave? Why? Check

Who decides if it impringes on the rights of others? The one doing the act? The "impringed" person? A third party? The courts? The religious authorities? Trial by combat?

This is the problem. The sentiment sounds and is a good one. Implementing it is tough. Who decides? And where and from who do they get the criteria for their decision?

I am getting closer to Buddhism in many ways, I don't think I can take the full journey, however, I like that basic ideas about reason and faith that come with it. I've always been fond of the basic premise that if something comes along that proves what you believe is wrong, then you need to change what you believe.

Maybe that's what makes me happy. Accepting what is.

Hmm,

On the surface of it, most of the rules you cite do seem a bit too restrictive. Certainly those not directly associated with a specific action, such as who your friends are, ought not pertain to a democratic society such as ours, and fortunately they don't. I have no problem with whom you associate, so long as the method of association does not interfere with the welfare of others, and even if I did, the law does not give me anything more than a public voice to object to your association, which seemly means I am entitled to my opinion and to express it, and nothing more.

However, most of the rules that pertain to such things as drinking at home, shooting at home and gambling in a legal facility are contextual. I can tolerate those activities of others so long as they don't exacerbate into a social problem, such as drinking at home leading to public drunkeness. It is not the action perse, but the outcome of taking the action to excess, which is where the line should be, and usually is, drawn.

Other rules, such as transporting dairy or produce, or slaughtering animals out in the back yard, ought to be done in a prescribed, proven method to reduce the inherent health risks associated with such activity. Perhaps you exercise all the hygenic effort necessary to prevent the spread of disease, contamination, or pests. However, rules such as these are in effect because at some point, some bozo decided to slaughter his chickens in the back yard, and he was not too careful about how he went about it, and maybe some kid or woman saw him doing it and took offense, or the blood and guts entered the public domain or some such and now you've got a public nuisance issue, and possibly a health concern, and so those activities have to be regulated somehow. I used to think there were a lot of ridiculous rules like this when I was younger, but after doing a couple tours in local govt., I've come to realize that each stupid sounding rule and regulation was created because some idiot or sleezebag or just plain ignorant fool didn't take the proper precautions and the situation got out of control and someone that shouldn't have been got their own rights violated as a result. Usually such events are handled in civil trial, but when it is a persistent and more widespread problem, then the regulations get made so that such activities can be controlled and approved methods used by those who so choose.

We had a guy in our neighborhood that didn't quite understand property rights decide to dig a pit in his backyard so he could put in some additional storage. He went and got a little backhoe and proceeded merrily along, right up till he hit the buried fiberoptic line that ran under his property (what is an easement???) That took out all the comms traffic in and out of the southern half of the Hanford Nuclear reservation and got our crew out doing a 90 line splice round the clock. While he was so busy arguing with the utility manager about his property line, the feds were there writing up the bill for the repairs, and the county inspector was there issuing him a notice of violation for not using the utilitiy locates service and for digging a hole more than 3 feet deep on his property.

For most of your list, I can say that the rule or law you violated is there because at some point there was indeed a victim at some point in time, even if not in your case. For the rest, thankfully, there are no such rules or laws in this country, yet, at least not where I live.

More to the point, I think we are still in agreement because I don't see as any of the rules you cite that would apply to a truly democratic society would in the proper context generate a victim. I bet no one's ever come to your home to check and see if you are in fact sitting inside the house drinking beer, unless someone saw you do it and for some reason took offense and called the authorities. Likely if you are prudent about your actions, that would not be possible. It is the careless that get popped for this sort of thing.