The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?

[Iceweasel]

No. You never created an intro, I don't know who you are. I'm trying to figure it out.

No argument, just diversion; i got it.

You made 1 statement and it just came out of nowhere. Explain it and then do a intro thread. We want to know who you are. We care and respect new posters that do this.

You claim that, but obviously don't care about discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

I'm simply asking you to explain yourself. Another words I'm caring. wtf? God I hope this isn't a day like yesterday......................Just explain yourself. Shouldn't be difficult.

Here is our "mission statement":

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It seems, the government is there to enable our mission.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I explained myself the first time. Why does it seem you didn't care enough to become more well informed, the first time?

Enable yes. Micro-manage no.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For the Federal government, it's primarily to provide for the common defense.

Common defense has many more facets today than it did 200 years ago, for example, unemployment and climate change qualify as threats to common defense and the general welfare. You aren't one of those who thinks a literal interpretation of the US Constitution supplies enough answers for a 21st century republic to survive, are you?

Common defense does have many facets. Besides the military, there is the FBI for cross State crimes and the CIA and NSA for intelligence as well as the Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard who aren't specifically mentioned and I don't think need to be. Those are all defense.

But global warming as defense? That's just stupid.

The basis of all this climate change global warming crap has absolutely nothing to do with pollution, the climate or anything else these people are feeding the public.
It is all about control. And control comes from the confiscation of wealth.
Here's an example. Cap and Trade. The idea reported to the people is that the government would tax companies for emitting more than a predetermined amount ( as determined by the now out of control EPA) of certain "pollutants".,....In turn the offending company could "buy credits" from the government....Why? To pay the government for permission to keep on emitting those same levels of "pollutants"
Companies on the EPA's "good side" could also take their pollution credits and sell them to the "bad side of the EPA" companies. Another source of revenue for the government.
Meanwhile the amount of "pollution" has not been reduced one iota. But the federal government issues a press release stating that the XYZ company has paid dearly for it's evil smoke emitting stacks. The little tree hugging libbies together with their Sierra Club dirt eaters and of course the anti business anti profit lefties cheer like game show audience members.
While all this is going on, members of congress are licking their chops to see which one of them can grab some of the newly found bounty and bring it back to their districts.
Now, through all that not a thing has been done to reduce "pollution".

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who are these 'elites' you speak so frequently of?

I want names, not some Kafkaesque accusations then run away and hide like a child casting a stone.

Start here if you have any real interest:
The Richest People in America List - Forbes

Who cares?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The only manipulation going on, now or ever, was through government.

Governments come and go and with them, the 'elites'.

Government is at the heart of everything wrong with civilization, not business

Hereditary wealth and/or multinational corporations have controlled every western government for thousands of years. Without some form of government, civilization and its artifacts like markets and private wealth doesn't exist. The solution is to build a wall of separation between the state and the influence of private wealth, and make sure the state's richest citizens are first to risk their lives in war.

No shit. No one denies this.
Your argument is typical of lib progressives. You all have set up the straw man argument that the argument for limited more fiscally responsible government is actually an argument for NO government.
That is neither true nor accurate.

 

[2aguy]

The business of the U.S. government is defined in the Constitution.....anything after that is a power grab....

 

[2aguy]

The role of government is to allow the PURSUIT of happiness, not to guarantee that everyone will find it.

The role of government is to get out of the way of business and let the free market, supply and demand, and individual hard work drive success (or failure).

"just get the hell out of my way" John Galt to the government in Atlas Shrugged.

The path to happiness is individual freedom.

The path to happiness is individual freedom

Of course....to have individual freedom, every aspect of life needs to be controlled by the government.....right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

But global warming as defense? That's just stupid

Not if it's real.

Whether it's real or not doesn't make it "defense." That's just word gaming.

And liberals don't believe it's real. If you actually thought it was real, you would not use it to justify solutions that satisfy your political agenda and do nothing to combat global warming like sending trillions to poorer countries and exempting the biggest polluters. If I thought the seas were going to rise and flood the land, I would be going to my political opponents with a sincere desire to work together, not using it as a partisan political hammer.

BINGO..

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is the OP's definition of "promote"?

"Chapter VII
OF HUMAN ACTIONS IN GENERAL


"VII.1
I. The business of government is to promote the happiness of the society, by punishing and rewarding."

Jeremy Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation Chapter VII Library of Economics and Liberty

That is ONE person's opinion. And one with which most of us would disagree.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Again to call it "defense" is pure word gaming, they meant physical protection. If you said that was defense they would have thought you were an idiot.

They would have thought both of us were idiots if we tried to explain USMB to them as well. If global warming poses a physical threat to the commons, does government have an obligation to intercede?

"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/u...-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=0

"The Pentagon"....And just who is the "Pentagon"?..At whose pleasure do those who work in the Pentagon serve?
"increased risks"....
Yeah, the liberal progressive cornerstone..."risk"....A condition we must avoid at all costs, correct?
So, according to the "Pentagon", we should in stages turn our entire economic and energy systems upside down based on what MIGHT or COULD happen?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Capital should serve the people, people shouldn't serve capital, just increasing GDP should not be the goal in of itself. Obviously sound economic policy should be a concern of the government, and policy should be centered on serving the national interest. As far as happiness, absolutely, part of the role of government is being proper stewards of society by providing order and continuity and maintaining/growing social capital. Increased prosperity is good of course, but not all "economic" growth is, and can in some cases be very anti-social and erode social capital. Economic "growth" that erodes social capital and fractures society should be mitigated. Examples of this would be for example curbing immigration. While it may improve profit margins for some, and perhaps increase GDP, it lowers the wages of labor and forces more onto the social safety net, it also drains that safety net. Another example would be commercial development or large scale resource extraction on natural preserves, lowering quality of life for many for the monetary gain of some. Another example would be a local community having zoning ordinances prevent large scale development in their area to prevent overcrowing. I think all these are examples where should come in to curb the excesses of capitalism. Usury is a last and final example, it creates wealth disparity and unsustainable debt while enriching, lowering the overall standard of living while creating a financial oligarchy. However, I would at the same time things like high and burdensome taxation that discourage investment, job creation, and the formation of independent wealth. Another example would shifting towards a workfare as opposed to a welfare system and standing against large scale nationalization of industry.

Perhaps it is too much to hope that we get beyond dogmatic capitalism and dogmatic socialism.

You could sum this up with one word..."balance"

 

[dblack]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

If we are not happy with what they decide, we get to vote them out

 

[Steinlight]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

The way to mitigate that is to clearly define the duties of the state in a constitution or legal code. On top of that to keep decision making on matters of policy generally as local as possible so as to avoid conflict between communities that have different interests and values. I don't think your argument discredits the idea of general welfare however. just because some people may disagree with this policy or another, that is the nature of politics and the state.

 

[Iceweasel]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

The way to mitigate that is to clearly define the duties of the state in a constitution or legal code. On top of that to keep decision making on matters of policy generally as local as possible so as to avoid conflict between communities that have different interests and values. I don't think your argument discredits the idea of general welfare however. just because some people may disagree with this policy or another, that is the nature of politics and the state.

Each state has a constitution. Take firearms for example. In this state the constitution reads much like the second amendment and as such is a shall issue state. Many libs want to ban guns here and there (mostly the Seattle area) but it's a no go because it conflicts with state law.

 

[Steinlight]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

The way to mitigate that is to clearly define the duties of the state in a constitution or legal code. On top of that to keep decision making on matters of policy generally as local as possible so as to avoid conflict between communities that have different interests and values. I don't think your argument discredits the idea of general welfare however. just because some people may disagree with this policy or another, that is the nature of politics and the state.

Each state has a constitution. Take firearms for example. In this state the constitution reads much like the second amendment and as such is a shall issue state. Many libs want to ban guns here and there (mostly the Seattle area) but it's a no go because it conflicts with state law.

I meant state in the nation state sense not the American sense. But yes, firearm regulations is an example of the local governance we should strive for that I was talking about.

 

[Iceweasel]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

The way to mitigate that is to clearly define the duties of the state in a constitution or legal code. On top of that to keep decision making on matters of policy generally as local as possible so as to avoid conflict between communities that have different interests and values. I don't think your argument discredits the idea of general welfare however. just because some people may disagree with this policy or another, that is the nature of politics and the state.

Each state has a constitution. Take firearms for example. In this state the constitution reads much like the second amendment and as such is a shall issue state. Many libs want to ban guns here and there (mostly the Seattle area) but it's a no go because it conflicts with state law.

I meant state in the nation state sense not the American sense. But yes, firearm regulations is an example of the local governance we should strive for that I was talking about.

Not quite following there. My point is the opposite of what I think you're saying. Local government has tried repeatedly to strip rights from citizens here, and elsewhere no doubt. The bottom line is the government should do what's necessary, not what's possible.

 

[dblack]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

If we are not happy with what they decide, we get to vote them out

That doesn't address the problem at all. The problem isn't that the majority might be unhappy with the decision. The problem is that we all have our own definition of the good life. And government should protect our freedom to pursue that vision, rather than dictating what it should be.

 

[Steinlight]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

The way to mitigate that is to clearly define the duties of the state in a constitution or legal code. On top of that to keep decision making on matters of policy generally as local as possible so as to avoid conflict between communities that have different interests and values. I don't think your argument discredits the idea of general welfare however. just because some people may disagree with this policy or another, that is the nature of politics and the state.

Each state has a constitution. Take firearms for example. In this state the constitution reads much like the second amendment and as such is a shall issue state. Many libs want to ban guns here and there (mostly the Seattle area) but it's a no go because it conflicts with state law.

I meant state in the nation state sense not the American sense. But yes, firearm regulations is an example of the local governance we should strive for that I was talking about.

Not quite following there. My point is the opposite of what I think you're saying. Local government has tried repeatedly to strip rights from citizens here, and elsewhere no doubt. The bottom line is the government should do what's necessary, not what's possible.

I don't see your issue with me. I said the nature of politics and the state is that there will never be total agreement, that is why government should be local and government at all levels should have clearly defined powers and limits to mitigate conflict as much as possible

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

If we are not happy with what they decide, we get to vote them out

That doesn't address the problem at all. The problem isn't that the majority might be unhappy with the decision. The problem is that we all have our own definition of the good life. And government should protect our freedom to pursue that vision, rather than dictating what it should be.

The Government represents us. They do as much or as little as we want

If We the People are not happy with their choices, we vote them out

It has happened tens of thousands of times

 

[dblack]

The problem with assigning government the task of "promoting the general welfare" (or happiness, or health, or whatever goodies people might want) is that it must first decide, for us, what constitutes our general welfare.

If we are not happy with what they decide, we get to vote them out

That doesn't address the problem at all. The problem isn't that the majority might be unhappy with the decision. The problem is that we all have our own definition of the good life. And government should protect our freedom to pursue that vision, rather than dictating what it should be.

The Government represents us. They do as much or as little as we want

If We the People are not happy with their choices, we vote them out

It has happened tens of thousands of times

The government only represents the majority, at best. That's the problem I'm pointing out above. Government is about mandating consensus. We use it when we need to all be on the same page. But when it comes to personal welfare and happiness, everyone has a different wants and needs. It doesn't make any sense to base that sort of thing on democratic decisions.