Minimum Wage Sucks Because

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

So . . . liquidating kulaks or sending Jews to gas chambers is cool, as long as the government is working best for the majority?

I am not sure that qualifies as 'doing the least.'

Have I just been 'Literally Hitlered?'

You're trying to build a premise for agreement. Is thin skin in face of questioning the best tactic to deploy?
Only servicing "the most" is what we call a pure democracy. Are you familiar with the pitfalls of a pure democracy?

Democracy of any type doesn't automatically follow from the premise. In the abstract, and absolute Monarchy could fit the description, if unlikely in practice. In fact, if we accept Fife's contention that 'most' should be 'all,' it is likely that democratic operations would be severely restricted.

I would love to hear another description of necessary and proper government. I'm not married to the premise, but a version of the state that doesn't really concern itself at all with how well it is functioning for the majority of its citizens might find it difficult to govern by consensus, so it would really have to ratchet up force.

[Speaker to Animals]

A good government is one that works the best for the most while doing the least?

Word games and semantics. A good government is whatever most citizens think is good. There is no objective "good", but there is "stable" and there is "accepted".

So good government does the most for the least number of people, or do you believe a good government does most for the most number of people in the most wasteful fashion possible?

I would have thought his point was a tautology.

If government fails to do the most for the most number of people when it is possible to do so, then it cannot be considered good.

If government fails to accomplish it's role in the most efficient means possible, including minimizing intrusion upon our lives, then it cannot be considered good.

If you wish merely to argue that there exist people who want government only to work for them, then I think you missed the point. Even those people, if they were not the privileged and selfish few benefiting from a bad government, would agree that a good government, at the very least, does the most good for the most people while doing the least.

[DBTrek]

Why are you hung up on government only serving 'the most'?
Seems like you'd favor a government that addressed the rights/needs of all citizens.
Why is being exclusionary to the concerns/rights of the non-majority so pivotal to your definition of government?

. . . and no, a Monarchy doesn't serve the needs of "the most", it serves the needs of the monarch.

[SuburbanFarmer]

A good government is one that works the best for the most while doing the least?

Word games and semantics. A good government is whatever most citizens think is good. There is no objective "good", but there is "stable" and there is "accepted".

So good government does the most for the least number of people, or do you believe a good government does most for the most number of people in the most wasteful fashion possible?

I would have thought his point was a tautology.

It's not at all. Because, if I say 'good government does most good for most people', then we have the Tyranny of the Majority, and 49% of citizens can be oppressed.

If I say 'good government does most good for all people', then clowns jump all over me for being a Marxist.

It's a word game, that can't be answered in absolutes.

[Speaker to Animals]

Why are you hung up on government only serving 'the most'?
Seems like you'd favor a government that addressed the rights/needs of all citizens.
Why is being exclusionary to the concerns/rights of the non-majority so pivotal to your definition of government?

. . . and no, a Monarchy doesn't serve the needs of "the most", it serves the needs of the monarch.

We are not talking about rights. Rights are about what the government cannot do with respect to the individual. We are talking about the positive roles of government (rule law, infrastructure, defense, monetary system, economic regulations, etc.). Those things should only be done when necessary, and to such an extent that they maximize the good for the most people while intruding the least. This isn't a controversial statement.

[Speaker to Animals]

Word games and semantics. A good government is whatever most citizens think is good. There is no objective "good", but there is "stable" and there is "accepted".

So good government does the most for the least number of people, or do you believe a good government does most for the most number of people in the most wasteful fashion possible?

I would have thought his point was a tautology.

It's not at all. Because, if I say 'good government does most good for most people', then we have the Tyranny of the Majority, and 49% of citizens can be oppressed.

If I say 'good government does most good for all people', then clowns jump all over me for being a Marxist.

It's a word game, that can't be answered in absolutes.

We are not talking about oppression, though. That would entail a violation of the minority's rights.

There exists a category of things a government should not do and a category of things that a government should do. We are speaking of the latter category. You are appealing to a violation of the former category, which was not even argued.

[SuburbanFarmer]

So good government does the most for the least number of people, or do you believe a good government does most for the most number of people in the most wasteful fashion possible?

I would have thought his point was a tautology.

It's not at all. Because, if I say 'good government does most good for most people', then we have the Tyranny of the Majority, and 49% of citizens can be oppressed.

If I say 'good government does most good for all people', then clowns jump all over me for being a Marxist.

It's a word game, that can't be answered in absolutes.

We are not talking about oppression, though. That would entail a violation of the minority's rights.

There exists a category of things a government should not do and a category of things that a government should do. We are speaking of the latter category. You are appealing to a violation of the former category, which was not even argued.

One defines the other. All actions not prohibited by law are implicitly endorsed.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Why are you hung up on government only serving 'the most'?
Seems like you'd favor a government that addressed the rights/needs of all citizens.
Why is being exclusionary to the concerns/rights of the non-majority so pivotal to your definition of government?

. . . and no, a Monarchy doesn't serve the needs of "the most", it serves the needs of the monarch.

A monarchy puts the monarch in charge. It could, in theory, serve in the interest of any number of citizens, from all to none, not even the monarch's... if he is an unbelievably incompetent archon.

I think addressing the rights and needs of all citizens is a fantastic rubric. That is only really excluded by the premise if you want to be really pedantic by saying that 'most' is, by definition, not all. If we changed it to 'works the best for all while doing the least' would it pass muster?

[DBTrek]

I think addressing the rights and needs of all citizens is a fantastic rubric. That is only really excluded by the premise if you want to be really pedantic by saying that 'most' is, by definition, not all. If we changed it to 'works the best for all while doing the least' would it pass muster?

It would be an improvement, don't you think?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

So good government does the most for the least number of people, or do you believe a good government does most for the most number of people in the most wasteful fashion possible?

I would have thought his point was a tautology.

It's not at all. Because, if I say 'good government does most good for most people', then we have the Tyranny of the Majority, and 49% of citizens can be oppressed.

If I say 'good government does most good for all people', then clowns jump all over me for being a Marxist.

It's a word game, that can't be answered in absolutes.

We are not talking about oppression, though. That would entail a violation of the minority's rights.

There exists a category of things a government should not do and a category of things that a government should do. We are speaking of the latter category. You are appealing to a violation of the former category, which was not even argued.

'Works best' is a little vague, as it doesn't automatically point to any sort of inalienable rights, but I rather hoped the caveat of 'doing the least' would undermine the argument of outright oppression of the minority a sliver of the majority.