• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wealth or well-being - what is most important?

Should governments be more concerned about creating wealth or creating well-being?

  • Wealth

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • Well-being

    Votes: 26 96.3%

  • Total voters
    27

Regicollis

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
318
Reaction score
163
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What is the most important role of government; to raise the wealth of the people or to raise the well-being of the people?

In some cases these two goals are the same - for instance the people of poor developing countries will have greater well-being by having enough wealth to buy adequate housing or food.

However I don't think wealth always lead to well-being. Today's industrialised societies already have enough wealth to secure that the basic needs of all citizens are met. An increase in wealth don't necessarily mean that your well-being increases if the price you have to pay is working longer hours or engaging in fierce competition.

I am not convinced that people in the industrialised world was too poor to be happy 20 years ago.

So what do you think is more important to do for the government; raising wealth or raising well-being.
 
What is the most important role of government; to raise the wealth of the people or to raise the well-being of the people?

Neither. The most important role of government is to protect individual liberty.
 
Neither. The most important role of government is to protect individual liberty.

So individual liberty should be the main aim for government, even when it makes people poor or miserable?
 
It's your own responsibility to ensure your own well being, such as eating right, engaging in healthy social contact, and pursuing happiness in your own way. I support government regulations which ensure that major, obvious threats which could kill you don't succeed, such as big companies leaking fatal chemicals near townships, or foreign nations invading. It's not the government's job to ensure that you live comfortably.
 
So individual liberty should be the main aim for government, even when it makes people poor or miserable?

The government only makes people poor and miserable when it gets in the way. People are personally responsible for their own well-being and wealth generation. The government may keep people from taking advantage of each other, but trying to care for people only makes them lazy and unproductive.
 
I like the idea of moving from a wealth-based society to a happiness-based society. The King of Bhutan introduced a concept called "Gross National Happiness." I think it's an interesting idea and maybe we could try to implement some form of it as an experiment. However, I'm not sure how successful government can actually be in making people happy, beyond the standard poverty-alleviation programs that are also tied to wealth.
 
Last edited:
Well-being, without a doubt.
 
The government cannot achieve what an individual can do. Therefor, the government should not stand in the way of individuals so long as they do not commit crime, then there is no need for so much regulation or nanny-state. But it feels like the majority of the people the government helps out the most are the most parasitic. I have had to deal with section 8 and it was the worse year ever. The tenent was on top of us trying to extort money from us once a week, and he'd call the government and the government(local, state) were on top of us like white on rice and we never had a problem with any tenent before that section 8. After that we will never give to section 8. The government is way too abusive and protective for the wrong people.

The city wanted us to call an architecture firm so that the buidling could be redesigned because it "wasn't mean to have a staircase in the back so that one of the units was connected to the area where the people park their cars." Really bad experiences and the people at the Chicago Housing Authority could care less when we went with them to tell them about the family. We showed them fake documents that he had created to have something fixed that HE broke. And still nothing. They just like ok ok we are sorry. But sorry doesn't help bring back the 27,000 dollars of damage that he created and the nuisances they created to the other tenents. They bothered the other tenents in the building, they would shut off the water to other units or steal from them when they were out working. Did the government do anything? Nope.
 
Neither- it's not the role of government to insure either. Protection of rights and defense of the country are legitimate.
 
There seems to be a widespread notion amongst the replies that government ought to do nothing but protecting a few rights and defend the national territory. However I feel it is important to bear in mind that the decision not to do anything is also a decision. Unbridled capitalism is also a government program.

Governments have to make decisions on policies whether libertarians like it or not and so far people seem in favour of basing these decisions on what will increase the well-being of the people.

Of course a case could be made that the greatest well-being will be achieved by the political system deciding to let go of all reins and let capitalist competition rule unchallenged. However something suggests that this is not the case, that societies with great inequalities, while sometimes being able to be among the wealthier ones, experience greater amount of discomfort, depressions and mental disorders than more equal, less competitive societies. All their wealth don't seem to buy them happiness.
 
There seems to be a widespread notion amongst the replies that government ought to do nothing but protecting a few rights and defend the national territory. However I feel it is important to bear in mind that the decision not to do anything is also a decision. Unbridled capitalism is also a government program.

Governments have to make decisions on policies whether libertarians like it or not and so far people seem in favour of basing these decisions on what will increase the well-being of the people.

Of course a case could be made that the greatest well-being will be achieved by the political system deciding to let go of all reins and let capitalist competition rule unchallenged. However something suggests that this is not the case, that societies with great inequalities, while sometimes being able to be among the wealthier ones, experience greater amount of discomfort, depressions and mental disorders than more equal, less competitive societies. All their wealth don't seem to buy them happiness.

It has nothing to do with letting capitalism run unchallenged, it's letting people do what they want as long as it hurts no one else.

Assuming that capitalism is all that will develop is untrue as well, there can be many micro communities based on whatever belief system they want it to be and no one should bother or challenge them either, as long as they are hurting no one else.
 
Neither- it's not the role of government to insure either. Protection of rights and defense of the country are legitimate.

And who made you the arbiter for determining what the government's role is, and whether or not a certain function is legitimate or not?
 
Well-being. Money and materialism are hollow and temporal.
 
It has nothing to do with letting capitalism run unchallenged, it's letting people do what they want as long as it hurts no one else.

Assuming that capitalism is all that will develop is untrue as well, there can be many micro communities based on whatever belief system they want it to be and no one should bother or challenge them either, as long as they are hurting no one else.

How big can these "micro communities" be? If I have one of these micro communities that generally adheres to free market principles but without the libertarian laissez-faire dogma, and it grows to, say, 300 million people and spans a continent, is that still OK?
 
How big can these "micro communities" be? If I have one of these micro communities that generally adheres to free market principles but without the libertarian laissez-faire dogma, and it grows to, say, 300 million people and spans a continent, is that still OK?

As long as I am not force to participate in their social programs and I am not forced to pay their taxes and penalties, then be my guest.
 
As long as I am not force to participate in their social programs and I am not forced to pay their taxes and penalties, then be my guest.

Then that defeats the whole purpose of these "micro communities," if the people who live in them aren't required to follow the rules. Therefore it's disingenuous to even suggest this.

And I pose the same question to you: Who made you the sole arbiter of what government's role should be? What makes you think that you have an inviolable right to every dollar you earn?
 
Then that defeats the whole purpose of these "micro communities," if the people who live in them aren't required to follow the rules. Therefore it's disingenuous to even suggest this.

Your question was foolish, so I had to answer it as best as possible.
You assume that 300 million people would want the same thing.

And I pose the same question to you: Who made you the sole arbiter of what government's role should be?

I did, it's my life and I only get 1 shot to live it, so to have some arbitary body of people, who don't know me or my needs and wants, make decisions for me is insulting.

How could the government possibly make everyone content?
 
There seems to be a widespread notion amongst the replies that government ought to do nothing but protecting a few rights and defend the national territory. However I feel it is important to bear in mind that the decision not to do anything is also a decision. Unbridled capitalism is also a government program.

Governments have to make decisions on policies whether libertarians like it or not and so far people seem in favour of basing these decisions on what will increase the well-being of the people.

Of course a case could be made that the greatest well-being will be achieved by the political system deciding to let go of all reins and let capitalist competition rule unchallenged. However something suggests that this is not the case, that societies with great inequalities, while sometimes being able to be among the wealthier ones, experience greater amount of discomfort, depressions and mental disorders than more equal, less competitive societies. All their wealth don't seem to buy them happiness.

The anarchy strawman inevitably rears its ugly head...:roll:
 
So individual liberty should be the main aim for government, even when it makes people poor or miserable?

How can the government make people poor or miserable by leaving them alone :confused:

Am I making you hungry right now by not sticking a hamburger in your mouth?
 
Last edited:
Your question was foolish, so I had to answer it as best as possible.
You assume that 300 million people would want the same thing.

I see. So these "micro communities" can grow until you decide that the people don't all want the same thing anymore.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I did, it's my life and I only get 1 shot to live it, so to have some arbitary body of people, who don't know me or my needs and wants, make decisions for me is insulting.

That has always been the case throughout human history, unless you want to be a hunter-gatherer living in the woods who doesn't rely on anyone else. The things that make it possible for you to live your life the way you want to (roads, schools, law enforcement, etc) aren't free.

Harry Guerrilla said:
How could the government possibly make everyone content?

It can't. What's your point?
 
Last edited:
I see. So these "micro communities" can grow until you decide that the people don't all want the same thing anymore.

I didn't say that at all, you are just assuming once again that such a community can exist, it can't as we have seen.

That has always been the case throughout human history, unless you want to be a hunter-gatherer living in the woods who doesn't rely on anyone else.

The things that make it possible for you to live your life the way you want to (roads, schools, law enforcement, etc) aren't free.

I certainly don't need your schools and many of the other things outside of law enforcement and roads.

And again your making assumptions like others do that I want anarchy, which I never implied.

It can't. What's your point?

It should stop trying to.
 
I didn't say that at all, you are just assuming once again that such a community can exist, it can't as we have seen.

Then why did you bring up these communities in the first place if they can't actually exist?

Harry Guerrilla said:
I certainly don't need your schools and many of the other things outside of law enforcement and roads.

Well good for you. Maybe I need the schools but not the roads. Yet I still have to pay taxes for them. Why shouldn't you have to pay taxes for anything that you don't personally use?

Harry Guerrilla said:
It should stop trying to.

That doesn't make any sense. A) The government DOESN'T try to make every single person content, B) The fact that it's impossible to satisfy 100% of people doesn't mean that it shouldn't do anything. I have never heard a serious politician claim that a policy would satisfy every single person in the country. This absolutist/utopian mindset tends to manifest itself in (I hate to say it) libertarians and Marxists...not people in the political center.
 
Last edited:
The fact that it's impossible to satisfy 100% of people doesn't mean that it shouldn't do anything.

Who said the government shouldn't do anything?
 
Back
Top Bottom