>>>Walter, US citizens have concepts of freedom drummed into them from a young age. "Civil rights" has a remarkable meaning that takes some getting used to, with intelligent people pouncing on any apparent impingement in rights, no matter how trivial, in the (correct) belief that this behavior will ensure that rights are not eroded.
>>
>>I understand the hammering on the concept of "Civil rights". However, hammering on the concept of freedom seems to me more a result from slavery rather something to achieve in life. It stumps me again and again that I see freedom explained as a goal in life rather than a right. To me Happyness is a goal in life, not neccesarely freedom, as we all know we are slaves at our own device.
>
>The trouble with stating happiness as goal is that every now and then a new version of an old dogma would pop up and say that everyone is happy when they know their place, because that gives them stability and orientation. Which is just another excuse to reduce the mobility and enforce some sort of social stratification, anywhere between classes and castes.

The problem with the idea of happiness is that it is a moving goalpost. When you "achieve" your happiness it will soon become average, nothing special. Then you will need to find another level of happiness. All attachments, whether to material things or mental states, will lead to unhappiness. Non-attachment is the correct approach.