Numbers Game?

[AVG-JOE]

Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?

 

[Si modo]

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.

It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.

And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.

 

[Chris]

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.

It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.

And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.

The "founding fathers" owned slaves.

 

[Si modo]

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.

It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.

And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.

The "founding fathers" owned slaves.

And, your point?

 

[Chris]

The happiest place on earth is socialist....

For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?


"The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.
Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.
Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

 

[Si modo]

Jesus H. Kraist.

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

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?

 

[Si modo]

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.

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 not sure what that has to do with what I said.

I'm talking about the tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps you could connect the dots between what I said, and what you are asking.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

 

[dblack]

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?

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?

It depends on how you measure the greatest good for the greatest number. For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits. On the other hand, increased social welfare benefits mean more public debt or more taxes and less private capital available for investment, meaning slower economic growth and fewer jobs. So in these examples, policies that seem to only benefit a few in fact benefit everyone, and policies aimed at benefiting everyone actually hurt everyone.

 

[dblack]

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.

Well, in that context, sure we should seek to benefit the most people. But government policy - because it is inevitably coercive - is another matter.

 

[Clementine]

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.

It would guarantee oppression of minority groups.

And, our Founding Fathers were brilliant in foreseeing that.

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?

 

[dblack]

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.

Yep... there are always 'workarounds', and laws can be 'crafted' to benefit specific groups - even individuals - by simply narrowing the circumstances sufficiently. I suppose that's always going to be a judgement call, but I think we ought to hold 'blind justice' as the ideal, rather that power brokering.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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 not sure what that has to do with what I said.

I'm talking about the tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps you could connect the dots between what I said, and what you are asking.

Sorry... your comment about the brilliance of the founders threw me off. I assumed you were praising the founders for the pluralistic and democratic aspects they managed to weave in to our early documents, not the wealth protection for white property owners that was a necessary compromise to keep things moving because of the political environment they found themselves in.

America however is a great example... Current policies do NOT benefit the greatest number of people and there's proof.

If current public policies in America benefited the statistical greatest number of people, the national distribution of wealth curve would form a balanced bell curve. Currently it does not.

 

[dblack]

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?

Because often it isn't. Politically, what usually defines the minority is that we don't agree with the majority on the details of what is 'good' for us and what isn't. As a blatant example, it might be 'good' for the majority to enslave a quarter of the population. It's likely that quarter might not agree such a plan would be 'good' for them.