Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
And, your point?In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
The "founding fathers" owned slaves.
Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
So why do so few control such a high percentage of your planets resources?
Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
As a society, of course. As a nation - only within carefully proscribed limits.
Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
As a society, of course. As a nation - only within carefully proscribed limits.
So with regards to national direction, who gets special treatment, and why them?
As a society, of course. As a nation - only within carefully proscribed limits.
So with regards to national direction, who gets special treatment, and why them?
Ideally, no one. Though obviously we make exceptions.
From the perspective or the rule of law, the question should never be 'who?', but rather 'why and under what circumstances?' The preoccupation with governance that focuses on the "who", rather than trying to apply egalitarian laws equally to all, is one of the most disturbing trends in government, in my view. It results in "power broker" governance where our leaders are focused on doling out privilege and exemption rather than applying the law evenhandedly.
So with regards to national direction, who gets special treatment, and why them?
Ideally, no one. Though obviously we make exceptions.
From the perspective or the rule of law, the question should never be 'who?', but rather 'why and under what circumstances?' The preoccupation with governance that focuses on the "who", rather than trying to apply egalitarian laws equally to all, is one of the most disturbing trends in government, in my view. It results in "power broker" governance where our leaders are focused on doling out privilege and exemption rather than applying the law evenhandedly.
I like the way you're thinking, but doesn't forgoing 'who' in favor of 'why' in public policy making decisions automatically instill a blind fairness with regards to people that those policies would indeed be aimed at benefiting the greatest number of people?
It sure as HELL would in theory and statistically.
Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
Noteworthy at this moment is that by 'society' I meant any organized human activity tasked with pursuing 'public policies' that you, the writer answering the question, care to judge.
Your nation and your society are synonymous in the context of the question.
In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
Hold that thought!
One exception... Tax policy.
With tax policy, why's can be used to protect specific who's... for example: the trickle down theory.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.In general? That depends. As a practice? No way.
It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.
And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.
So why do so few control such a high percentage of your planets resources?
I'm talking about the tyranny of the majority.
Perhaps you could connect the dots between what I said, and what you are asking.
How exactly would making policies that benefit most people would oppress minorities? Are they not people? Why did you assume that what is good for most is not good for minorities?