What is the ultimate goal of your political ideology?

Great Debates
1

What is the ultimate goal of your ideology?

If we were to form a constitutional congress today to found a new nation and you were going to try to sum up the goal for the society you wanted to found…then what would it be?

#1: My big vague answer: The Goal is a Happy World.

or to be a little more precise:

#2: The goal is a society in which all members have an equal opportunity to live a happy life.

My answer can be found here.
(I don’t post my complete essays in this forum because I wish to retain my copyright.)

Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right, Capitalist or Socialist, whatever you are…is it possible for us all to at least agree upon a vague description of our ultimate goal??

Do you agree in spirit?
Do you have a wording you prefer?
Do you have some beautiful poetic way to say this same thing?
Or do you have a totally different goal in mind?

Please chime in.

2

The goal of my ideology is a government which limits itself to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. I have no desire to “found a society” or “design a society” of any sort. I believe that the realization of my goal would allow a prosperous society in which all members have opportunity to achieve happiness.

3

My goal would be a society where every human being is free to decide by themself what their own personal goal during the course of their life was, and to pursue that goal as long as they don’t harm any other human being.

4

If I may chime in, your question is actually misworded, in that you use ‘nation’ instead of ‘state.’ See, a nation is a heterogenious (SIC) group of persons who exist in spite of (or perhaps because) of political boundaries. Think Kosovar Albanians or Kurds or Louis Farakhann (SIC?)'s Nation of Islam. A state is a political entity which exists within set borders and may or may not have a ‘nation’ within them. Kosovo is a ‘state’ whereas Kosovar Albanians are a ‘nation.’ When comprised, those two do indeed form a ‘nation-state.’ The reason I say (ask?) this is because you used the term ‘constitutional congress’ and, to the best of my knowledge, the existance of a nation is not directly tied to a constitution, whereas a state ususally is so.

5

My ideal goal is much like ITR champion stated. I want a government that looks after my interests in the world, protects me from internal and external agression, and maintains a legal system that prevents people from abusing others through physical violence, threats, fraud, contract violation, etc.

I don’t want a government that ‘engineers’ society to make it more ‘fair’. I don’t want a government that protects me from myself. I don’t want a government that tells me what to read, what religion to follow, what products I can or can’t buy, what color my skin must be, how much of my money I must give to other people to fit others’ notions of ‘social justice’.

However, because I believe that a wealthy society can be magnanimous, and because I recognize that it is in my interests to minimize the social strife in my country and the world, I do not mind a limited social safety net, foreign aid, and I support actions to minimize the amount of tyranny in the world, including the violent overthrow of the worst dictators if it can be shown that the cure is not worse than the disease for the people of that country, and that the world as a whole would be a better place.

So call me a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian, and a foreign policy hawk.

6

SS: *I want a government that […] maintains a legal system that prevents people from abusing others through physical violence, threats, fraud, contract violation, etc.

I don’t want a government that ‘engineers’ society to make it more ‘fair’.*

Sure you do; what is the legal system you speak of but a means of “engineering society” to make it more “fair”, by limiting in certain ways the ability of the powerful to “abuse others”? You and the other social engineers differ only in where you draw the line in the “etc.”, that is, exactly what you consider to be illegitimate means of abusing others versus acceptable means of gaining an advantage over them.

7

I disagree with the notion of an “ultimate goal,” as though we’re progressing to a particular philosophy’s view of utopia, and when we get there that’s that. Life goes on. There is no endpoint.

8

In keeping with the intent of the OP, I’ll offer a simple, one sentence goal. No input about how to get there, not even the form of gov’t that would come out of that goal:

To secure the maximum amount of freedom for it’s citizens that is possible in a social setting.

9

If another two centuries pass and a large portion of humanity is still dying of treatable diseases/hunger/exposure, how can any progress be said to have been made at all?

10

If another two centuries pass and a large portion of humanity is still dying of treatable diseases/hunger/exposure, how can any progress be said to have been made at all?

We may argue about how to secure them for every human on the planet most quickly, but surely these must be the ultimate goal of all but the most obdurately indifferent curmudgeons?

11

Steve Martin has an amusing bit where he announces that if he had one wish, it would be for all the children of the world to come together in a moment of peace and harmony. Wishes 2-8 establish Martin as a savage decadent tyrant, but at least his first thought is for the children.

12

#1 Quit spending so damn much money.

13

For once, I am in complete agreement with Dewey. Although I guess I should add that making sure life does go on is pretty much a prerequisite to everything else.

14

Not quite like that but that piece was hilarious

15

I want an elimination of all formal forms of coercion. If that is not possible, I want the absolute minimum occurrence of formalized coercion.

Formalized coercion would be any circumstance under which an official body (“government” or equivalent at any level) forces a person to do something they do not want to do, prevents them from doing something they want to do, or does something to them without their explicit (fully-informed, unpressured) consent.

16

Thank you all for your responses!

jklann:
My premise that we are all members of a constitutional congress is simply meant as an exercise so that everyone reveals what they would do if they had the power to change the fundamental structure of society. Whether you think of it as “what would you do if you were starting from scratch?” or “What would you do if you had the power to change the fundamental structure of your society now?” both questions are equivalent to me. I simply want to know whatever ideology you adhere to, why do you adhere to it?

Is your ultimate goal a society in which all members have an equal opportunity for happiness?

Jklann, if you and I were sitting at a table and we had the power to determine the structure of society, I think we are basically starting with the same general goal. I assume your goal is a government which limits itself to protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens because this is (to you) the best way to “allow a prosperous society in which all members have an opportunity to achieve happiness”? Is this correct?

If my interpretation of your statement is accurate, you agree with my stated goal #1 (a happy world) and #2(a society in which all members have an equal opportunity to live a happy life)? And your description of your ideal government is simply how you believe #2 is best accomplished?

I ask this simply because I am leading to a discussion of how #2 is best accomplished…I wanted to begin with making sure “a society in which all members have an equal opportunity for a happy life” is what we all want.

**ITR Champion: **
Again, I don’t think you are actually disagreeing with me. I agree completely with your stated goal, I think we are simply saying it differently. Could we try to come to a single phrase that we are all comfortable with?

When you say your goal is a society in which every member is free to choose their own personal goal…this to me is the equivalent to saying every member has the right to “the pursuit of happiness” as it is used in the Declaration of Independence. “Happiness” is simply a word used to refer to “whatever personal goal” people choose to live for.

In other words, I make no presupposition about what “happiness” is when I say the goal is a world in which every member has an equal opportunity for happiness. Happiness is whatever each member of society chooses for themselves. Yet, by using one phrase “happiness” to refer to this nebulous freedom, it is sort of a unifying reminder…that all people do basically live for the same thing…a happy life.

For some people happiness entails raising a family, for others it entails building amazing works of architecture, and for others it may simply entail following their favorite sports teams… But in essence, all humans want to enjoy their life, and do things which are fulfilling, live, learn, be healthy, eat, …to be happy.

As to the second part of your stated goal, “as long as they don’t harm another human being” this is implied by the use of the word “equal”. For if one member is free to hurt another member of society, then those members will no longer have equal opportunities to live and pursue happiness.

So what do you think? Are we basically saying the same thing when I say, “The goal is a society in which all members have an equal opportunity to live a happy life?” if we make a note to the effect that “happiness” is whatever each member chooses it to be?

**Stemba: ** Good point. “State” should be substituted for “nation”. I apologize.
**
**Kimstu: ** If I remember correctly, I have been very impressed with your posts on other great debate topics. I would love for you to chime in with your opinion on the OP. :slight_smile:
**

**John Mace: ** Would you say you believe that “to secure the maximum amount of freedom for all members of society that is possible in a social setting” is the way to best ensure that “all members of society have an equal opportunity for happiness?” My point is only that saying “We want a society in which everyone is free” is very similar to “we want a society in which everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue happiness”…. They seem to me to be different ways of saying the same thing…since happiness can only be something each member has the maximum freedom to define…and equality entails protection of your freedom from incursion by others.

What do you think? I would love it if we could come up with a single favorite phrase that best sums up our goal. For again, I think we all do basically have the same goal. We all want a world in which everyone is happy. Right?

What do you think of this (I am asking everyone.):

“Our goal is a society in which all members have an equal opportunity to live a happy life. Happiness being whatever each member of society chooses for him or herself with a maximum amount of freedom possible in a social setting.” :slight_smile:

If we were all members of a constitutional congress….or had power to change our states right now…would we all agree that statement sums up our mutual goal?? Obviously much needs to be discussed regarding what government shall and shall not do…we must decide how exactly this goal is best accomplished, but is that statement a beginning?

17

Let’s try this:

Please submit nominations for “goal statements”. What is the ultimate goal of your ideology?

I list these as the current nominations.

  1. Our goal is a happy world.

  2. Our goal is a society in which all members have an equal opportunity to live a happy life.

  3. On behalf of John Mace I will nominate: Our goal is to secure the maximum amount of freedom for it’s citizens that is possible in a social setting.

  4. Our goal is a society in which all members have an equal opportunity to live a happy life. Happiness being whatever each member of society chooses for him or herself with a maximum amount of freedom possible in a social setting.

If anyone would like to try and sum up their goal for government then please do. Once I feel the discussion has run its course, we can have a poll. But let’s wait until we have discussed it as thoroughly as possible.

Thanks!

Matt

18

my ideal society is one in which everybody has an equal right to good medical treatment, whatever his/her income.

That is - in many people’s opinion, not mine, - incompatible with maximum freedom for everybody because everybody has to pay for the few cases with expensive illnesses.

Another point: everybody seems to think that it is only the governement who can limit the freedom of the individual.

What about big corporations?

19

I hope there is more to it than that. Otherwise, your perfect society allows me to get brutally beaten just as long as I either die or can go to an emergency room.

Julie

20

We’re getting into nitpick territory here, but happiness to me is a bit different from freedom. One can be happy and not free as well as free, but not happy. I’m sure many people in China are quite happy, even though freedoms are restricted relative to a typical Western Democracy. Also, I would not include the word “world” in what is essntially a vision statement for one country’s government. We cannot control what happens outside our borders, nor should we try to.

BTW, I’d probably elimininate “that is possible in a social setting” from my original goal statement. It’s probably not necessary to be that explicit, as long as one realizes that some amount of freedom must be given up to live in a socitey (such as the “freedom” to fire a canon in your backyard at 3AM).

The US founders listed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. It’s not clear to me that life and the pursuit of happiness are not covered by “liberty”.

And the concept of freedom, or liberty, is more universally understood than is “happiness”.

So, I’ll stick with my original, and even offer to shorten it, as per the above elaberation.

I’ve always felt strongly that a vision statement should be a simple declarative statement. Once you get away from that, you start implying the “how” instead of simply sticking with the “what”.