DISQUS

Matt McIntosh · 4 years ago

It can go either way. I know a lot of libertarians that are generally pretty happy, and a lot that are generally pretty grumpy, but I think you're right that libertarians tend to be more constant in their attitudes than political partisans.

Bill Korner · 4 years ago

Why only libertarianism? Any third party in the U.S. would meet your criterion. The better solution is NON-PARTISANISM!

Here's my personal preference ordering for a party system:

zero parties: awesome
many parties: okay
2 parties: yuck
1 party: absolute disaster

I'd recommend that preference ordering to anyone.

Isn't it interesting how libertarianism is a party with out a party, except of course for that stupid party. But they are a potent ideological faction, especially with blogs like this one.

Javier · 4 years ago

Interesting post and paper. By the way, are we going to see a CATO article or policy-brief come out of this research on happiness that you're doing?

Gil · 4 years ago

What happened to that preference-changing strategy you were advocating a few posts ago?

Maybe people should just switch their preference to whoever is, or is most likely to be, in power?

If that sounds stupid, well, I think it is. Just as is any talk of choosing your party based on its prospects for victory. Although, I know that many people do this, or something like it.

It makes sense to be happy when your party is in power because you think that they are furthering your values, and you expect these values to make things better. It's happiness about this, not the party being in power, that should be making you happy.

Will Wilkinson · 4 years ago

Gil, That's right! If you were a committed utilitarian, maybe you SHOULD switch. Now perhaps utilitarians can give some account of the utility-enhancing properties of maintaining a coherent ideological identity over time. But most of us, I think, like the idea of integrity and intellectual honesty, whether or not it costs a few hedons.

I should mention, that I wasn't actually advocating the preference-altering strategy. All I was saying is that a utilitarian who understands Coase probably should be.

Looking at the study, it looks like an opposing party implementing one's favored policies doesn't do much to make you feel better. So it does look like people like being on the winning team, and actually policy is incidental. Which is why, I suppose, the huge government travesty that is the Bush adminsitration, is nonetheless beloved by the faithful.

Gil · 4 years ago

Also, it might not be so much that your guys are in power, but that the other guys aren't.

Everybody knows that we're much better off with the Stupid Party than with the Evil Party.

Bill Korner · 4 years ago

Boy oh boy does utilitarianism get a bashing on this blog! Surely Will knows that utilitarianism is not identical with Bentham's hedonism, but you wouldn't guess it from reading his "discussion" with De Long. Ironically, Mill is both the main defender of Julian's thesis that we benefit from being able to make mistakes and a utilitarianism. Of course, one can plunk for the view that, for example, being able to choose to smoke is good even if having such choices does not ultimately redound to the individual's or society's benefit. But I for one think that the Millian position will be more convincing to most people.