Happiness

The politics of governance appear to surround over one issue: happiness.

In certain quarters, happiness surrounds having family ties, kinship and friendship. Therefore in certain camps, we work for everyone rather than self benefit, so really disputes are largely shun upon.

On other camps, economic outcomes are a means of justifying legitimacy. It means that only by providing equal opportunity and resources can happiness be achieved. In other words, the government's job is associated with providing the framework for achieving your happiness and do not regulate insomuch as to how you attain it.

The divide is quite painfully obvious.

In the former, everything comes together, nothing is separate from each other. Everything is inseparable from each other. We are community beings and any attempts to separate this-even in theoretical terms- is tantamount to breaking things up.

In the latter, separation is the key to happiness. Only by providing check and balance- can one prevent an interest group provide a preponderant force over the rest of society. The government is minimal and only provide means of attaining happiness and does not regulate how or what to be happy.

I straddle both lines. I know in my mind that the harms one can do when a harmful preponderant force can have on the rest on society but at the same time, personally I come from a background of which such thoughts are considered taboo- and it is not really as bad as it turn it to be, you just need to be good in the important issues and try to toe the line in less critical ones.

Indeed, I think quite a number of us who have this type of exposure would at some point in time would have to grapple with this dilemma.

I believe quite a number of us would feel frustrated as we are considered "rebels" or "westernized" or "debauchery" when we personally believe that everyone should have a voice. At the same time, we have studied and exposed on the ill-effects of believing from an authoritative source as a compared with learning from multiple sources.

As a personal experience, it is because that I believed in learning from multiple sources that I strive to find out the sources of conflicts which arises from both camps.

It is a difficult journey as one who is not faithful from either camp would be considered as disloyal and unfaithful. Indeed they say that a spot makes a man- that much is true.

Indeed, it is extremely inconclusive to say it as bad as I have went through 30 years of year- and for the last 28 years, it wasn't so bad- until one starts getting exposed to different ideas and experience. For one, I had held these "foreign" ideas for the last 10- it was not really as "totalitarian" and inhumane as one would describe in more polemical ones. I had friends who discuss these ideas in school and nothing happen to us- and these classes were taught in tertiary institutions as well.

Indeed, in the latter form which prides choice over normative rules- we had a choice to choose these less "popular" courses- even though they might be frowned upon- which is pretty fine considering that everything and everyone has a preference one way or another.

Likewise, at the end of the everything, I realised a single truth is that: Nothing really matters until you believe that it is true. And both are equally false and true at the same time.