[mentat]

The goal of a country is to continue improving the quality of life of its citizens. Grouping working and consuming in that is totally bogus. Working (theoretically) produces things which should, all in all, improve the quality of life. Consuming is totally different and an essentially broken way to promote growth.

[bdunbar]

The goal of a country is to continue improving the quality of life of its citizens.

Respectfully, I disagree.

The goal of a country is to allow her citizens to have "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

The problem with saying a country should have goals is that you can't get more than three people to agree on what to have for lunch, let alone millions upon millions to agree on goals, means and how to optimally achieve them.

[Volpe]

> The goal of a country is to allow her citizens to have "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

I think you mean just one country there... Generalising to all countries is a little ethnocentric, no?

[bdunbar]

I meant what I wrote.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are natural rights of man, not [1] 'contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.'

Human-centric, perhaps. Not ethnocentric.

[1] cut and pasted from wiki to save typing.

[Volpe]

... That's complete crap, not all cultures believe that.

Even the concept of 'individual rights' is a western concept. Ever considered the possibility that we (humans) don't have rights.

Again, ethnocentric, just because you think the world should be like that, doesn't mean the rest of the world wants that. This is the kind of crap the british empire believed that it was "educating the barbarians" it's just an excuse to destroy other peoples culture.

[bdunbar]

not all cultures believe that.

I did not say that they did. Sucks to be them.

Ever considered the possibility that we (humans) don't have rights.

I did. I've grown up and moved on.

just because you think the world should be like that

I don't think the world _should_ be like that. I believe it's a universal truth, like love, gravity, and the idea that puppy breath smells good.

The world _is_ like that.

doesn't mean the rest of the world wants that.

They are welcome to their wants and desires.

Note that where people have a chance to run their own affairs, live unafraid of their government, and etc they prefer it over the alternative.

[Volpe]

belated response but:

> I did. I've grown up and moved on.

Belittling me as what, immature? for pointing out a completely valid part of history and philosophy, is hardly a compelling argument. I think you should read some more on philosophy to understand what I said better.

> I believe it's a universal truth

It's a self created concept of how people should be. By definition it can't be a universal truth. It isn't a scientific observation (like all your other examples). I don't believe it, and given it is a human concept, it isn't universal (else I'd believe it as well). Again, I suggest even a basic intro into philosophy.

> The world _is_ like that.

No it isn't. Most people in the world, live to survive, not any lofty notion of 'pursuit of happiness', or even a concept of "rights". Simply survival, by nature that is what most animals live for, you could perhaps say that is the universal truth (empirically), as that is what is observed.

> Note that where people have a chance to run their own affairs, live unafraid of their government, and etc they prefer it over the alternative.

An example would help illustrate the point? I think you'll find that throughout human history there has been very little example of 'human rights'. Even in modern times, a lot of "rights" are ignored by (possibly) every country. It is just a convenient and simple way to think about how societies should act. It is by no means the be and end all though.

I understand the want to be idealistic, and the draw to simple solutions. But consider the notion, that perhaps more people could have a better life without the notion of "rights". Perhaps there are other ways to think about this that is closer to human nature, or hold more benefits.

[TruthElixirX]

That was his point. Read the rest of his comment.

[asolove]

Of course, not working is a much quicker way to increase most people's quality of life.

[Tsagadai]

Except it doesn't. Being unemployed isn't fun, it isn't "a holiday". Most people feel stressed because of that uncertainty in their life. There is also a strong social stigma associated with unemployment, no one goes around at a party gloating about being unemployed.

You should read up, or better yet talk to people, about retiring. So many people struggle with retirement. It is hard to find a new purpose for life after a big chunk of who you were is gone. Most people I have met tend to take up volunteer work, charity, running some hobby project or some other busywork (I know more than one person who retired into playing MMORPGs fulltime). Most hackers retire into one project or another.

If you have never been without a job, you have no idea. You are hardwired to seek social acceptance and reward and a job is the main way society says you should achieve that.

[DanBC]

The (UK) Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health would disagree. They've been pushing hard on a "helping people with MH problems get back to work"; not just for the benefits to wider society but for the benefits to the individual of better mental health.

[brc]

I disagree entirely, for two reasons: 1) Working is all about becoming a part of society, of contributing, of belonging. Few people can take a prolonged period of not contributing without some level of depression.

2) The overall quality of life of people is determined by the application of time and labor saving devices, as well as by technical enhancements to lifestyle and health. There is no higher improvement of quality of life than low infant mortality and longer lifespans. All of these things are delivered by a society that embraces specialisation as a way of increasing productivity by everyone.

Sure, you'll get no argument from me that pointless consumerism backed up by debt-based spending is not the path forwards, but that is an entirely different proposition to stopping working altogether. Only the committed hobo will get satisfaction from a life like that.

[philwelch]

> There is no higher improvement of quality of life than low infant mortality and longer lifespans.

Really? You'd trade off absolutely anything to increase those metrics?

[brc]

Obviously these are things that are harder to improve in a Western society, so the big gains are in developed countries. My original comment was probably slipping towards rhetoric-ville, but the point still stands - maximising the chance your child will make it's 5th birthday and that you and your family will live as long as possible definitely trumps most things.

[mqqq]

A person without a job is more likely to be depressed, even if they don't need the job to pay their bills i.e. Rich people.