What is a good government?

When the science of Ethics is applied to political theory we arrive at this definition of the concept “a good government”:

A good government is one which continuously improves the quality-of-life of its citizens, and facilitates the inhabitants in its jurisdiction to help one another; it especially encourages them to have a concern for the less-fortunate among us, and to give them a helping hand to rise up a rung, or a step up, on “the ladder of opportunity.”
In other words, we are to teach the less-fortunate your ‘success secrets.’ And a good government would help us to do that.
If we have a skill in an area that is useful to society then we are to give the less-fortunate tutoring ad training in that area if they show an interest in it, and are willing to apply themselves to it. And a good govt. would facilitate in some way our doing just that …maybe by compensating us for our time spent in the training. In this way we would relieve poverty.
The ultimate good govt. aim is to acquire a very-democratic waste-free and a scarcity-free social order, one that is not only efficient but also effective …one which cares about people, values them highly, and lifts them up. The use of referendum questions to determine policy would be used much more widely than it is at present.

Your views?

Does anyone here agree with what is stated in the original post?

Does anyone have an improvement or update of that definition I offered?

Do any of you readers and participants have a better definition of “good government” to contribute?

True power sets free, and true leadership serves.

Self-government is organic and will not happen without leaving space for the individual’s will to creatively overcome conditions.

The welfare state is a helicopter parent who won’t release its children from a conservatorship that keeps them dependent and controllable and gaslights them into that state or a state of slavery they cannot rise out of, due to withheld opportunity (hoarded resources)…it does not leave space for growth and shouts “Grow without water, etc! You obviously don’t want to grow! We’ll give you water if you agree to yada yada. If you grow enough, your fruit belongs to us first! Forget your family! And forget going off grid (opting out) without penalty.”

See my global manifesta thread if you want more lol.

Isn’t a “good government” one that helps provide assistance to the people in their effort to achieve their own purpose?

Since you do not know what that purpose is - how can you know that your government isn’t good enough? - or possibly as good as it gets?

Observr writes: “Isn’t a “good government” one that helps provide assistance to the people in their effort to achieve their own purpose?”

I would say, NO. If one (or more) of the people is a Bad Character, a predator, a con-artist, a criminal mind, etc., then I wouldn’t want government to help achieve his or her purpose :exclamation: :exclamation:

Would you want that?

I’ll stand by my definition offered in the original post. It is a definition which is obtained by applying systematic Ethics to Political Theory.

Your views?

That shows why you are actually a communist.

For a government to do as I suggested - help the PEOPLE (plural) - it must balance the needs - else helping one might also hurt another - net waist of time.

For a government to virtue signal IT’S OWN morality upon its population is to steal life from the people in order to give life to the government (almost always merely those running the government in secret) - leaving people to be nothing but a burden to the government elitists and only useful for providing them more power until those people are no longer useful (“blood suckers” - “vampires”).

Your view of a “good government” is actually a true vampire government - soulless - life sucking - doomed by the light of day. Real life communism works exactly that way –
“WE dictate what is good and evil so that WE continue - you are but an insignificant inconvenience WE have to endure by pledging our protection of your worthless existence.”

I’m sure you don’t believe that - because you believe that if they were really doing that - they would certainly tell you.

There is a name for that kind of usefulness.

Re: morality… Ethics and politics are synonymous - that’s why when you take a course on ethics and a course on political philosophy, you’re studying the same exact people/ideas.

So if you wouldn’t legislate a situation between you and your friend/family group, then it should not be writ large on a whole population. AND vice versa.

Observr writes: “Isn’t a “good government” one that helps provide assistance to the people in their effort to achieve their own purpose?”
Then thinkdr wrote: “I would say, NO. If one (or more) of the people is … a predator, a con-artist, a criminal mind, etc., then I wouldn’t want government to help achieve his or her purpose :exclamation: :exclamation:

Then, in response, obsrvr524 » on Jan 07, 2023 - wrote: "“This why you are … a communist.”

So, if I don’t want to aid a predator(for example, a child-sex-trafficker; or a sweat-shop-slaver)
or if I, [say I’m a Mayor of a town], do not want to assist someone who is a criminal, and/or one who scams the gullible elderly with his glib con-artist gift to deceive, deprive and exploit the vulnerable … if I do not want to aid them achieve their purposes, then I am not a good civil-servant nor do I have a good administration. That is how observr524 reasons.

I also don’t want to help an extremely selfish, self-centered, opportunist get his or her way. Such an individual cares primarily and nearly-exclusively for himself - an example would be a recent defeated ex-president who shall here remain nameless [but whose initials are DJT] - then that makes me “a communist” - a preoperative, disparaging term with > 20 definitions - but that will not be defined but left vague in his argument - no, in his rant. Does this seem reasonable to you, folks?

Would the rest of you Forum members want to help someone achieve his ends when he regards other people as merely means to his ends? His attitude is mainly: “m going to get mine, and he heck with you!” Or it is: "I’ve got mine, and screw you :exclamation: "

Immediately after the o.p. which aims to explain what a good government is by alluding to “quality of life” – a concept that is clarified more fully in the Structure of Ethics vooklet linked to below – Ichthus77 offers us these beautiful words:

[size=85][May I quote you on that, my friend? I’d like to give you credit, but I don’t know your real name …only your nickname.][/size]

However Ichthus77 then goes on to set up a Straw Man, and proceeds to knock it down. In the o.p. I said nothing about a “welfare state.” :exclamation: It is a commission of The Straw Man Fallacy of logic to attribute that to - or even imply that about - the definition of a good government presented in the first post.

Then Observr524 picks up on that theme in a post a bit later, and really runs with it. I suggest that he, and everyone, re-read that o.p. more carefully. …Especially study that last paragraph of the first post which emphasizes the importance of democracy :exclamation: This kind of politics is antithetical to, and is the opposite, of the tyranny they have in China, in Russia today, or had in the old Soviet Union.

Also, Observr, you are setting up, and knocking down, a Straw Man. I just don’t see the relevance to anything I said in the original post. Yes, I too want government to be well-balanced. How can a policy which really helps you not help me? For what really hellps me, helps you, and vice versa! {Although we may not yet be conscious of it we are all members of a loving family: the human species. That awareness, and its practice, is the next stage of human evolution.}

You bring up the concept of ‘purpose of life.’ Yes, a person will judge something as “good” if it helps him/her attain or fulfill the purpose of his/her life. That is an informal meaning of the word “good.”
A more-formal meaning is found in the third chapter of M. C. Katz - ETHICS; A College Course, which reports what Dr. Hartman, my mentor, accomplished:

. S. Hartman, - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman - a true genius, created/discovered the definition. [size=54](It states: something, or someone, is good if it bijectively {i.e., in a one-to-one correspondence relationsiip between its attributes and its properties) fulfills the meaning of the concept under which it is subsumed by the valuer.)[/size]

In other words, this specific instance of the concept completely exemplifies its concept: it matches both the definition and the exposition - and even the connotation and the atmospherics of the concept. If it exceeds them, one would rate it as “excellent” or “outstanding” maybe, rather than merely “good.”

Thus, a good government. is one that has everything you suppose ‘a government’ to have. It is “all there” under its concept! That is why one would call it “good.”

BTW, which Party has been more fulfilling the definition lately? Which of the two major political parties in the U.S. has been more in compliance with the definition? Which one is providing a better Quality Life?

RE: communism, obsrvr picked up on your words, “provide assistance”

Not my rabbit hole. See my replies above, and my global manifesta thread.

You claim the words “provide assistance to” were MY words. They were his words, not mine. :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

Please read more carefully.
I did not utter those words.
I suggested that it would be wise to relieve poverty - and that this be done by each individual, each citizen, helping one another

While I admire the adaptation to Capitalism which the Scandinavian countries have made, but I think that the dividends solution that Peter Barnes proposes is far superior to the notion of paying taxes. No one likes taxes. Who needs them!
Why not have a national sovereign wealth fund that generates dividends; and that enables the government to be sustainable, to maintain a balance. See the writings of Barnes. And also the book, OUR FAIR SHARE by Brian Johnson.

Sorry. Blehhhhh the confusion of throwing around labels that have multiple meanings.

For those who care about good government who noticed my reference to Peter Barnes: If you would like to know more about what he is proposing, here is a link that will get you right to it. (His idea is rather visionary, yet it is well-worth campaigning for, mobilizing for, and working to bring it about):

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 6#p2890886

.
A good government is thoroughly democratic, entirely transparent, authentic, highley ethical, and has the other “good character” attributes.

What do you think regarding this topic? Do you agree with what is stated in the first sentence above?
If you don’t, tell us why. …If you do, add a comment of your own.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security

wind up with neither." --Ben Franklin.

And those who place their political party over the drive to achieve good government will disappoint everyone, including themselves.

What follows is a an excerpt [ - quoted by permission - from p. 47, in Ch. 4 o The Structure of Ethics booklet] that relates to our current topic:

APPLICATIONS TO OF SYSTEMATIC ETHICS TO POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT

According to Political Science, where it overlaps with Ethics, an administration
(or government) is good if it makes the lives of the vast majority of its
citizens better than before; that is to say, if it provides opportunity for
advancement in life-quality. People don’t just want to “make a living”; they want to
make a life …a Quality Life.

Everyone wants to feel needed and relevant (useful and competent), but if they
feel emasculated and fearful, or feel that their government is going in the wrong
direction, they may vote in a “strong” leader who will make himself more
powerful …until he becomes a despot. He will do this by violating ethical principles and norms. He will live by such moral fallacies as: "The end justifies the means” Or, “Might makes right”; or "Anything goes!

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an exception. He was an exceptional leader who -
although he was a member of an elite class - could identify with, and actually care
about the downtrodden, the commoner, and the person who was hurting. He was
so respected and admired that he was elected President of the U.S.A., and then
he was re-elected three more times!

Comments? Questions?

A good government is one you hear from or about, more than a month apart.

Sure, if you, my friend, refrain from listening to the radio, and from watching TV, and from reading any newspapers, or reading any posts that have the word “government” in them, then you will not hear about government at all. It’s easy.

Also be sure to avoid any internet site that discusses policies, or that wants to make things better, or a site that discusses the values and disvalues of political candidates and office-holders, such as youtube.com/user/thomhartmann
In case you prefer to listen to a podcast rather than view a video, be sure to stay away from the podcasts h of this prolific genius tunein.com/podcasts/Progressive … rt-p34417/ – for then one might learn something …and we wouldn’t want that, would we :wink: :sunglasses:

Government is making it harder every year to tune them out.

Eventually they’ll bother you no matter what deep dark hole you hide out in.

I agree with you that we need some reform in that area. It may be helpful for you to review the original post on page 1 of this thread to refresh in your mind the ideal for a government …namely, to continuously improve and upgrade the quality of our lives. Also, be sure to take in the entirety of this presentation by professor Hartmann, who is a prolific author, speaks in simple language, and is in addition now a full-time radio host and anchor; the talk was given at a bookshop:
bing.com/videos/search?&q=y … CDFAE2E0C3
&ajaxhist=0

You will thank me after listening to this talk because you will learn something you did not know before! It is highly educational :exclamation:

You seem to be saying that “X is a good Y” means “X meets all conditions necessary in order for something to be Y”. If that’s the case then I strongly disagree.

“John is a good man” does not mean “John meets all conditions necessary for him to be a man”. That’s what “John is a man” means. “John is a good man” means something else. It can either mean “John is a useful man” or “John is a man who possesses many useful abilities”.

In most cases, “X is a good Y” means “X is a useful Y”. A good government, for example, is one that is useful to a given group of people.

That’s as far as definitions are concerned. If you want to talk about what kinds of governments are useful to a group of people of your choice, that’s a different topic, one that goes beyond the definition of the terms “good” and “good government”.

Pretty much.

Perhaps you should define the term “bad character”.

Note that Observer was probably talking about the highest goal rather than any random sub-goal that is posited in an attempt to attain the highest goal. A good government is one that serves the highest goal, not merely any goal we posit. So if a government helps people steal from other people, it’s not necessarily a good government; it is only so if stealing serves the highest purpose of those who are stealing.