A Government's Primary Goals

Scanlas The 2nd

What should a governments primary goals be?

For example it could be to maximise total happiness of the population or it could be to minimise suffering?

Minimising suffering possibly fits in with a more socialist ideology whereas maximising happiness possibly fits in with a more free market ideology.

Doc Ruby

"Serve the public trust"
"Protect the innocent"
"Uphold the law"
"any attempt to arrest a senior OCP employee results in shutdown"

krudler

I dont agree with his Bart killing policy, but I do agree with his Selma killing policy...

Biggins

Keep us all in Jellybabies!

stevenmu

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Minimising suffering possibly fits in with a more socialist ideology whereas maximising happiness possibly fits in with a more free market ideology.

I'd actually say the reverse is true. Maximising everyone's happyness is a socialist goal. The government giving everybody everything they want is very much a socialist ideal, with the idea of a 'radiant future' being a core part of communism (or soviet communism at least).

Minimising suffering would be more of a capitalist free market idea, with the government existing to provide the basic protections and requirements and people being responsible for their own happyness.


Or there's the AH answer: The gubberment should make sure we all have enough cheese.

AnonoBoy

One of the main roles in government is to remember that the letter 'N' appears twice in the word.

Nothing rocks a nation to its core more than a plaque outside parliament proclaiming it to be 'GOVERMENT BUILDINGS'.

Scanlas The 2nd

stevenmu wrote: »

I'd actually say teh reverse is true. Maximising everyone's happyness is a socialist goal. The government giving everybody everything they want is very much a socialist ideal, with the idea of a 'radiant future' being a core part of communism (or soviet communism at least).

Minimising suffering would be more of a capitalist free market idea, with the government existing to provide the basic protections and requirements and people being responsible for their own happyness.


Or there's the AH answer: The gubberment should make sure we all have enough cheese.

The way I see it in a socialist economy more people who are sick unemployed, disadvantaged etc get help however that stifles growth which would allow many to prosper. In a more free market economy it allows for people to prosper much more and to take charge of their life which would be more fulfilling.

Say there are 1000 people. Would you prefer a situation where all of them are neutral when it comes to happiness, they live there life and get on with things but there is no real joy, excitement or enthusiam in their lives, they aren't suffering at all either.

Or would you prefer for 900 people to be happy, fulfilled, over the moon with joy in their life and for 100 people to be miserable, in pain and get no pleasure from life.

I think these sort of questions are very important and never discussed economically or politically.

Kojak

Tax, Tax and more Tax

Scanlas The 2nd

stevenmu wrote: »

I'd actually say the reverse is true. Maximising everyone's happyness is a socialist goal. The government giving everybody everything they want is very much a socialist ideal, with the idea of a 'radiant future' being a core part of communism (or soviet communism at least).

Minimising suffering would be more of a capitalist free market idea, with the government existing to provide the basic protections and requirements and people being responsible for their own happyness.


Or there's the AH answer: The gubberment should make sure we all have enough cheese.

It could possibly be socialists and capitalists goal to maximise happiness, they could just be wrong about what maximises happiness.

Son Of A Vidic

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What should a governments primary goals be?

Prioritising the interests of the nation and its people would be a nice first step. As opposed to their current obsession with practicing how to goose step.

amacca

I would argue that a governments primary goals should be to stay the fcuk as far out of its citizens business as possible while still providing law and order, education, healthcare and protecting the environment (not just being busybodies for the sake of it)

I dont want them to provide for my happiness or minimise suffering....just provide basic services and kindly fcuk the fcuk off tks v.much govt.

Joshua Jones

A governments primary goal is to stay in government. The stuff in between elections is a nuisence for them tbh.

Biggins

What should a governments primary goals be?

To keep us voting till they get what they want?
Here we go again? http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/government-to-revisit-failed-referendum-on-inquiries-178833.html

Scanlas The 2nd

amacca wrote: »

I would argue that a governments primary goals should be to stay the fcuk as far out of its citizens business as possible while still providing law and order, education, healthcare and protecting the environment (not just being busybodies for the sake of it)

I dont want them to provide for my happiness or minimise suffering....just provide basic services and kindly fcuk the fcuk off tks v.much govt.

How can you possibly have any goal before happiness of some sort?

Presumably you want to be as happy as possible, if the government staying out of it's citizen's business makes them happiest then that would fit in with the maximising happiness goal. The governent has to think about the well being of the entire country not just one person who doesn't like interference.

IMO socialists and capitalists have a similar inprecise goal of doing what's best for the people. They simply differ on what course of actions and policies makes people better off.

theg81der

Efficient administration and redistribution of state income to provide services or goods which a civilised society deems necessary and which have positive externalities with the expectation of future benefit to the citizens of the state including those unable to care for themselves. And also as an efficient means of representation both nationally and internationally.

Kojak

Biggins wrote: »

To keep us voting till they get what they want?
Here we go again? http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/government-to-revisit-failed-referendum-on-inquiries-178833.html

Jesus Christ, they can't take no for an answer.

Pity they wouldn't have a referendum about their own pay (or the likes) - I'm sure they would be shítting it about the result they would get. :mad:

smash

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What should a governments primary goals be?

Tits or GTFO should be right up there.

kincsem

Create jobs while closing businesses. We should strive for 100% employment, all in the public service, funded by Germany (because they like to work, so let's not disappoint them.)

ejmaztec

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It could possibly be socialists and capitalists goal to maximise happiness, they could just be wrong about what maximises happiness.

As long as the leaders and their pals are happy, they don't give a sh1t about anyone else, no matter what political ideology they follow.:(

Scanlas The 2nd

Hence I said "What should the goals?"

Doc Ruby

smash wrote: »

Tits or GTFO should be right up there.

Careful what you wish for.

ejmaztec

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Hence I said "What should the goals?"

I'm just adding a bit to the festering pot of happiness.:(

Mr Benevolent

Biggins wrote: »

To keep us voting till they get what they want?
Here we go again? http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/government-to-revisit-failed-referendum-on-inquiries-178833.html

I'm not voting yes to that. They're trying to con us into letting them investigate anything and anyone for any reason. Legalised corruption.

pickarooney

I'd say most people would be happier if they were suffering less so I don't really see what's to argue there.

Scanlas The 2nd

pickarooney wrote: »

I'd say most people would be happier if they were suffering less so I don't really see what's to argue there.

Choose one, happiness for most, suffering for some or neutrality for everyone.

pickarooney

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Choose one, happiness for most, suffering for some or neutrality for everyone.

What do you mean by neutrality? If a government can alleviate the suffering of its people they can't force them to be happy.

amacca

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How can you possibly have any goal before happiness of some sort?

survival is not necessarily happiness but it would be a goal many people put before happiness to give but one example

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Presumably you want to be as happy as possible, if the government staying out of it's citizen's business makes them happiest then that would fit in with the maximising happiness goal. The governent has to think about the well being of the entire country not just one person who doesn't like interference.

happiness is an individual goal...its subjective the government should never be involved in the business of making its citizens happy.....it should do its job and provide basic services etc

after all one person happiness is another's misery...its just an impossible task...how does the govt prioritize whose happiness to maximize.....how does a govt decide what will make the majority of its citizens happy..is it actually possible to make people truly happy on any sort of long term basis anyway?

I for instance would expect the govt to provide me with perfect health a beautiful wife and kids, stimulating and always interesting work and even then I probably wouldn't be happy if everything was handed to me on a plate.....whatcha gonna do now govt?....you're supposed to make me happy you fookers!

Ellis Dee

theg81der wrote: »

Efficient administration and redistribution of state income to provide services or goods which a civilised society deems necessary and which have positive externalities with the expectation of future benefit to the citizens of the state including those unable to care for themselves. And also as an efficient means of representation both nationally and internationally.

That sums it up perfectly.

Unfortunately, it ain't going to happen on this planet. :cool:

Scanlas The 2nd

pickarooney wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Choose one, happiness for most, suffering for some or neutrality for everyone.

What do you mean by neutrality? If a government can alleviate the suffering of its people they can't force them to be happy.

A government has an infinite possibility of actions to take, one possibility maximises the populations happiness. Maybe it's by staying out of people's lives and only providing essential services, who knows, but they can maximise happiness overall.

Neutrality is neither happiness nor unhappiness.

Scanlas The 2nd

amacca wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How can you possibly have any goal before happiness of some sort?

survival is not necessarily happiness but it would be a goal many people put before happiness to give but one example

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Presumably you want to be as happy as possible, if the government staying out of it's citizen's business makes them happiest then that would fit in with the maximising happiness goal. The governent has to think about the well being of the entire country not just one person who doesn't like interference.

happiness is an individual goal...its subjective the government should never be involved in the business of making its citizens happy.....it should do its job and provide basic services etc

after all one person happiness is another's misery...its just an impossible task...how does the govt prioritize whose happiness to maximize.....how does a govt decide what will make the majority of its citizens happy..is it actually possible to make people truly happy on any sort of long term basis anyway?

I for instance would expect the govt to provide me with perfect health a beautiful wife and kids, stimulating and always interesting work and even then I probably wouldn't be happy if everything was handed to me on a plate.....whatcha gonna do now govt?....you're supposed to make me happy you fookers!

Well if the government stays out of your life that would appear to make you happier. If the government decided to introduce the death penalty do farting that would make people unhappy, if the government decides to lower politicians wages that could make people happier.

If people's survival wasn't prioritised that would make people unhappy, so by taking care of survival you are taking care of the primary goal of happiness.

later12

A Government's primary goal ought to be to increase or maintain welfare.

It can do this by increasing or maintaining liberty and equality.

Equality and liberty are essentially mutually exclusive. You cannot be totally at liberty if you are totally equal to everyone else; you cannot be totally equal to everyone else and be your own man.

The question of how best to reconcile liberty with equality is a question that has dogged human kind since the French Revolution. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of personal philosophy.

The question of what exactly a government's philosophy should be is, therefore, impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction.

Get out while you still can.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

A Government's primary goal ought to be to increase or maintain welfare.

It can do this by increasing or maintaining liberty and equality.

Equality and liberty are essentially mutually exclusive. You cannot be totally at liberty if you are totally equal to everyone else; you cannot be totally equal to everyone else and be your own man.

The question of how best to reconcile liberty with equality is a question that has dogged human kind since the French Revolution. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of personal philosophy.

The question of what exactly a government's philosophy should be is, therefore, impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction.

Get out while you still can.

The solution lies in what makes the population maximise happiness. Or minimise sufferwing if you choose that as your goal.

AgileMyth

Primary goal is re-election. Always has been, always will be.

Cunts.

Chuck Stone

Whatever about a government's goal it gains control of what happens with tax-payers money. The goal then of special interests is to influence it as much as possible to benefit them.

Corporations
Military
Bankers
PS/CS Unions
Farming Unions
OAP's

Logical Fallacy

Get Money.

**** Bitches.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The solution lies in what makes the population maximise happiness. Or minimise sufferwing if you choose that as your goal.

I'm afraid I don't agree. That's why I simply mentioned increasing welfare in the first line of my post. I was hoping to avoid utilitarian philosophy, while still commenting on what the primary aim of government ought to be.

I take a more Byronic view, and I don't believe that the suggestion that our choice is between positive and negative utilitarianism is a valid suggestion.

Personally I think utilitarianism should be scrapped in a move which would simultaneously increase my happiness and decrease my misery.

amacca

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If people's survival wasn't prioritised that would make people unhappy, so by taking care of survival you are taking care of the primary goal of happiness.

mere survival is not happiness yet people would prioritise survival above personal happiness....that was my point

by taking care of survival you are not taking care of happiness...you are taking care of survival

amacca

later10 wrote: »

Iin a move which would simultaneously increase my happiness and decrease my misery.

win win :eek:

to use a sporting analogy (which I stereotypically love to do)........that would be a six pointer for you

Scanlas The 2nd

amacca wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If people's survival wasn't prioritised that would make people unhappy, so by taking care of survival you are taking care of the primary goal of happiness.

mere survival is not happiness yet people would prioritise survival above personal happiness....that was my point

by taking care of survival you are not taking care of happiness...you are taking care of survival

That's a logic paradox. If survival is more important to you then survival is what makes you happiest so by prioritising survival you prioritise happiness.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The solution lies in what makes the population maximise happiness. Or minimise sufferwing if you choose that as your goal.

I'm afraid I don't agree. That's why I simply mentioned increasing welfare in the first line of my post. I was hoping to avoid utilitarian philosophy, while still commenting on what the primary aim of government ought to be.

I take a more Byronic view, and I don't believe that the suggestion that our choice is between positive and negative utilitarianism is a valid suggestion.

Personally I think utilitarianism should be scrapped in a move which would simultaneously increase my happiness and decrease my misery.

Do you agree that the actions of a government can change the emotions in individuals? If so then you must agree there exist certain actions that make people feel the best on average. What reason would it be desirable for the government not to take those actions that maximise how good people feel on average? ( apart from the minimising suffering alternative which is more subjective)

amacca

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's a logic paradox. If survival is more important to you then survival is what makes you happiest so by prioritising survival you prioritise happiness.

I see.....then could you kindly explain how some people are simply not happy merely surviving but will fight tooth and nail to survive if their life is threatened nonetheless ...is that a "logic paradox"?

its not enough to simply exist and be alive to be happy for many

are you sure you are not confusing achieving any goal with happiness?

Scanlas The 2nd

amacca wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's a logic paradox. If survival is more important to you then survival is what makes you happiest so by prioritising survival you prioritise happiness.

I see.....then could you kindly explain how some people are simply not happy merely surviving but will fight tooth and nail to survive if their life is threatened nonetheless ...is that a "logic paradox"?

its not enough to simply exist and be alive to be happy for many

are you sure you are not confusing achieving any goal with happiness?

People who are not happy merely surviving are maximising happiness, minus 3 points of happiness is greater than minus ten points of happiness. More accurately they are attempting to maximise happiness by merely surviving instead of not surviving.

Scanlas The 2nd

amacca wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's a logic paradox. If survival is more important to you then survival is what makes you happiest so by prioritising survival you prioritise happiness.

I see.....then could you kindly explain how some people are simply not happy merely surviving but will fight tooth and nail to survive if their life is threatened nonetheless ...is that a "logic paradox"?

its not enough to simply exist and be alive to be happy for many

are you sure you are not confusing achieving any goal with happiness?

People who are not happy merely surviving are maximising happiness, minus 3 points of happiness is greater than minus ten points of happiness. More accurately they are attempting to maximise happiness by merely surviving instead of not surviving.

Scanlas The 2nd

amacca wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's a logic paradox. If survival is more important to you then survival is what makes you happiest so by prioritising survival you prioritise happiness.

I see.....then could you kindly explain how some people are simply not happy merely surviving but will fight tooth and nail to survive if their life is threatened nonetheless ...is that a "logic paradox"?

its not enough to simply exist and be alive to be happy for many

are you sure you are not confusing achieving any goal with happiness?

People who are not happy merely surviving are maximising happiness, minus 3 points of happiness is greater than minus ten points of happiness. More accurately they are attempting to maximise happiness by merely surviving instead of not surviving.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

A Government's primary goal ought to be to increase or maintain welfare.

It can do this by increasing or maintaining liberty and equality.

Equality and liberty are essentially mutually exclusive. You cannot be totally at liberty if you are totally equal to everyone else; you cannot be totally equal to everyone else and be your own man.

The question of how best to reconcile liberty with equality is a question that has dogged human kind since the French Revolution. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of personal philosophy.

The question of what exactly a government's philosophy should be is, therefore, impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction.

Get out while you still can.

Why should a government seek to maximise welfare?

Temptamperu

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why should a government seek to maximise welfare?

Its because me back like its in agony //heads to the pub.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Do you agree that the actions of a government can change the emotions in individuals?

Yes, but not their actions alone.

If so then you must agree there exist certain actions that make people feel the best on average.

Yes. But as I don't adhere to utilitarianism, I don't believe this is all down the the actual action in itself, but other factors such as the intention behind the terminal action or sequence of actions; this is not even considered in the purview of Utilitarianism, nor can it be.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Do you agree that the actions of a government can change the emotions in individuals?

Yes, but not their actions alone.

If so then you must agree there exist certain actions that make people feel the best on average.

Yes. But as I don't adhere to utilitarianism, I don't believe this is all down the the actual action in itself, but other factors such as the intention behind the terminal action or sequence of actions; this is not even considered in the purview of Utilitarianism, nor can it be.

I don't know what utilitarianism is so I can't comment it. Yes I agree sequence of actions are important. I just don't understand what could possibly take higher priority than maximising peoples happiness. If it turns out the government doing absolutely nothing maximises happiness that's what they should do, if socialism maximises happiness that's what they should do, if capitalism maximises happiness that's what they should do. Every action a government takes should be examined for how it affects average happiness overall. Of course the chain of cause and effects are far too complicated to understand completely.

amacca

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People who are not happy merely surviving are maximising happiness, minus 3 points of happiness is greater than minus ten points of happiness. More accurately they are attempting to maximise happiness by merely surviving instead of not surviving.

I think you and I have a different concept of what actually constitutes happiness

this debate is not making me happy

tayto lover

To fill their pockets, look after their cronies and wait to be thrown out in the next election. Pockets full of course.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I just don't understand what could possibly take higher priority than maximising peoples happiness.

How about "moral law"?

Do you believe that the end always justifies the means, for example?