The only valid purpose of government is the happiness of people

[Alive]

What other purpose is at all rational? Why should the government support freedom, justice, or sovereignty in any case in which one of these abstract idea will lead to a less happy populace? Why should we follow any wide, broad ideology like libertarianism or liberalism or democracy rather than just applying one single rule to every situation: if it increases the happiness of the populace, it is right and should be instituted; if it decreases the happiness of the populace it is wrong and should not be? While we can argue over exactly what will maximize happiness, we should not use any other justification for government action. Government should only exist to give people what they want--and what they actually want, not what they think they do. Abstract ideas don't benefit actual people, except in those cases where they correspond to the best way of advancing happiness.

[bishop]

government creates order, order creates security, security can lead to happiness. there are LOTS of examples of governments that don't give a damn about the happiness of their people. and then you have opposing examples.

and, if governments gave everyone what they wanted, they'd be completely bankrupt. the bush administration is trying that out right now.. giving tax cuts, military pay raises, record-high pork spending, prescription drug benefits, amnesty for illegal immigrants... everybody's got their hand in the pie, and the twit at the helm doesn't care whatsoever - he's the biggest spender of them all.

[Alive]

There are governments that don't care about people's happiness, and these governments are wrong and should be reformed to care about people's happiness.

And government shouldn't give everyone what they want; they should attempt to maximize total happiness.

[tinybear]

Well, you can't make everyone happy all of the time, can you? Besides, people are never satisfied. How can you ever be happy what you've already got? The hunger for 'more' happiness is insatiable. I am somewhat less ambitious. The function of government is to create and maintain order. The pursuit of happiness is up to us.

[Alive]

No, you can't. But you can try to maximize happiness. Even then not everyone will be happy. But in general, people will be better off than if government cares solely about itself or about abstract, undefined ideas.

If creating and maintaining order and allowing people to pursue happiness themselves is the path that maximizes happiness, then governments should take that path. However, happiness should be the only justification.

[bishop]

how do you accomplish either of these?

these governments are wrong and should be reformed to care about people's happiness. they should attempt to maximize total happiness.

[giuliano]

the govt does not have a purpose of its own, it is a mere drone. its purpose is programmed by citizens, not as a singular goal or purpose, but as a huge array of tasks decided by the many factions and individuals that make up its constituency.

the govt is just a servant, it is there to serve the wills of the people.

i should add that is the theory behind democratic govt, of course it doesn't quite work like that in practice. anyone can plainly see that for right or wrong, the bush admin has its own agendas and people are free to vote them in or out at 4 year intervals.

[MerlinsByte]

Alive writes; "But you can try to maximize happiness. Even then not everyone will be happy. But in general, people will be better off than if government cares solely about itself or about abstract, undefined ideas........"



Merlin writes; I agree with Alive, in that the happiness broker government would be the ideal. It won't happen. This world was designed, for a drastically smaller population. Or a larger population of intelligent life i.e. a less stubborn, greedy mankind.

Government will always serve the rich, the power brokers, and rarely the citizens that actually need "government" humanitarian aid.

I do not trust our system of electing a president or any political agent, much less appointments (judges, etc.) and agencies such as the IRS. EPA .CIA .FBI .NSA etc.
Our republic is in trouble, and is becoming a national socialist corporate entity rather than a democratic nation.

[Mr.Vicchio]

America is becomeing a what?

ROFL

[tinybear]

I have a question: If we're here on earth to do good for others, make them happy...etc....then what are the others here for?

[ericsp23]

So how do we determine what will "maximize happiness?" Do you have some kind of happiness equation that we can plug values into so that we can determine the happiness quotient of any particular policy?
Happiness is too vague a concept to be of any practical value as a system of governance.

[Alive]

Quote by: giuliano the govt is just a servant, it is there to serve the wills of the people.

I agree, but I think I would define the wills of the people different from you.

If there comes a conflict between serving the stated wills of the people and serving the true desires of the people, why should the wills come first? It is better to give people what they want than what they think they want, is it not?

[Alive]

Quote by: ericsp23 So how do we determine what will "maximize happiness?"

That's beyond the scope of my current argument. The point is that maximum happiness should be the goal government should try to work towards. The methods can be debated seperately, but this is the only valid end goal.

As for too vague a concept; I don't see why. People generally know when they are happy. Government should work rationally from the maximum happiness ideal to determine its policies.

[Scribbler1]

This may have been covered from a different angle, but my take on this is that in such a diverse society as ours government cannot provide happiness to anyone without pissing someone else off. Government should create an environment that ALLOWS the people to be as happy as is practical.
Of course "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" already deals with that, IMO..

[mr.perfecto]

I'm not ericsp, but I think the point of his question was how the government would know what would make it's people happy.

Considering that two different people can decide they are happy at different points, in order to pursue that goal, the government would first have to decree when people are to be happy and then punish them for not being happy when they are supposed to be. Personally, I'd take libertarianism over than anyday.

[caspian88]

I see it as government is supposed to allow the people to find their own happiness, within a few select limits. IE, the government, as Locke said, should protect your rights to life, freedom, and property. I also add infrastructure, as in roads, airports, harbors, and such, because privatizing the roads is a bad idea. I don't mean public airlines, either, just the airports.

[Nabeel Saiyer]

Governmet is a Political Tool. Politics means to look after the affairs of the people. Capitalism is failing, and Communism has failed, in respect of looking after the affairs of its people.

The only ideology capable of looking after the affairs of its people is Islam. The islamic Ideology, (currently not being implemented anywhere in the world) which is implemneted through the Islamic State, can act as a true 'melting pot.' It was implemented for over 1400 years and covered a major part of the globe. It is NOT a state for muslims only, rather it will and has looked after the affairs of people from other faiths, example Christains, Jews and Hindus.

Regarding it providing Happiness to it s people. Happiness is subjective; Micheal Jackson Maybe happy by sleping iwth young boys, Yorkshire Ripper maybe happy by killing prostitutes, and for Armin M, being a Cannibal may provide him with Happiness (http://www.crazynews.net/dp/1-41.htm). Point being, Happiness is an emotion, and based on peoples whims and desires. The purpose of the government is to look after the affairs of the entire populace, rather than individuals. Hence, laws,a nd regulations need to be set. The question here is, does Man legislate (given that he is prone to whims and desires), or are the laws based on devine text, whihch set general rules?

[Samildanach]

I happen to agree that part of a governments stated purpose should be providing an environment where the population has a good chance to be happy. they should also be obliged to spend money collected from taxes on the population and facilities for the population that provided those taxes rather than for example external trade. To provide happiness to a country is easy, people just want to be treated fairly and have the same shot at doing what they want as anyone else, if they perceive things are fair then they are generally happy.

[Autolykos]

Happiness cannot be quantitatively measured. Therefore, I reject "the only valid purpose of government is the happiness of people" as a matter of principle.

The purpose(s) of government, ultimately, are whatever its members want it (or them) to be.

- Rob