Training of new Afghan police suspended

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

It's not immediately clear to me that a government that honestly served peoples interests - not that I've ever seen such a thing - would annex Canada, (not that they didn't seem to try in 1812,) or outlaw fatty foods. Though doubtless there'd be more regulation and education in the latter regard.

Do you really want a government to represent the will of the people? The will of the people often seems to be little more than cheerleading towards things that, if they were smarter or better educated on the issue, they wouldn't want. It seems to me you'd be far better off going with their interests; what they show themselves to value most; than their will; what they think will get them what they think they value, as the ideal goal of government.

Would it not be in your interest to live longer and be more wealthy? If yes, then outlawing fatty foods and conquering nations that aren't well defended are obvious choices for government that puts the interest of its own people above everything else.

Also, the 1812 war is a bad example as nations acted a little differently 200 years ago and as that war was not only motivated by greed but also by a number of British provocations.

As for the will vs. the interest - that is how governments supposedly work, whether the idea is good is another question.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

Would it not be in your interest to live longer and be more wealthy? If yes, then outlawing fatty foods and conquering nations that aren't well defended are obvious choices for government that puts the interest of its own people above everything else.

Also, the 1812 war is a bad example as nations acted a little differently 200 years ago and as that war was not only motivated by greed but also by a number of British provocations.

I suspect happiness gained for wealth gained levels off fairly quickly if you properly manage it. In so far as it is in the interests of everyone to be more wealthy however, no-one's really sure how it would go if everyone tried. If America attacked Canada, or some other poor country, and attempted to have things all its own way there by force of arms, then what would other powerful countries do?

If you have a principle of trade instead, then it seems to me your risk of getting into a major shooting match go down. Whereas if you force your way whenever you think you've an edge, and everyone else does the same, that can get mighty expensive mighty quickly.

But back when wars were fought with less dangerous weapons that is what countries did all the time. It's difficult to underestimate the impact that extremely destructive, protracted wars - such as the hundred years war - had on Western morality. We had to come to terms with the fact that if we kept fighting these sorts of large scale wars, increasingly fuelled by industry, we were effectively going to wipe ourselves out for very little gain.

#

And I'm really not sure it is in your interest to live longer.

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

As for the will vs. the interest - that is how governments supposedly work, whether the idea is good is another question.

I guess. It strikes me now whichever side you come down on on that, it's going to be a higher duty than following the moral laws that concern individuals.

I suppose the argument here would be that morality is often little more than the flavour of the moment - and when governments start following morality, rather than the interests of the people, that separates the interests of the state from those of the people. That government then becomes incredibly dangerous. It is doing something 'moral' but what it considers and acts upon is not necessarily what the majority consider moral, or would (and to my mind this is the more important one) care about and consider moral if they were smarter. The two sets of interests become completely uncoupled from one another.

And when you force that on people it becomes oppression. It sounds fine to say that governments should do the moral thing, but that's only going to be the case as long as government is doing your moral thing.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

I suspect happiness gained for wealth gained levels off fairly quickly if you properly manage it. In so far as it is in the interests of everyone to be more wealthy however, no-one's really sure how it would go if everyone tried. If America attacked Canada, or some other poor country, and attempted to have things all its own way there by force of arms, then what would other powerful countries do?

If you have a principle of trade instead, then it seems to me your risk of getting into a major shooting match go down. Whereas if you force your way whenever you think you've an edge, and everyone else does the same, that can get mighty expensive mighty quickly.

But back when wars were fought with less dangerous weapons that is what countries did all the time. It's difficult to underestimate the impact that extremely destructive, protracted wars - such as the hundred years war - had on Western morality. We had to come to terms with the fact that if we kept fighting these sorts of large scale wars, increasingly fuelled by industry, we were effectively going to wipe ourselves out for very little gain.

#

And I'm really not sure it is in your interest to live longer.

What could other countries do? Stop the US from spending large amounts of money to import wares and resources? Attack them?
I doubt that there is much they could do that would outweigh the long term benefits of doubling your territory and adding a few million people to your work force. Not to mention natural resources and local industry.

As for living longer - I don't think you will be able to convince a lot of people that it is not in their interest to live longer.

I guess. It strikes me now whichever side you come down on on that, it's going to be a higher duty than following the moral laws that concern individuals.

I suppose the argument here would be that morality is often little more than the flavour of the moment - and when governments start following morality, rather than the interests of the people, that separates the interests of the state from those of the people. That government then becomes incredibly dangerous. It is doing something 'moral' but what it considers and acts upon is not necessarily what the majority consider moral, or would (and to my mind this is the more important one) care about and consider moral if they were smarter. The two sets of interests become completely uncoupled from one another.

And when you force that on people it becomes oppression. It sounds fine to say that governments should do the moral thing, but that's only going to be the case as long as government is doing your moral thing.

That morality changes over time doesn't mean that it is worse than the will of the majority, especially if it is not simply changing but evolving. Besides, the will or interests of people is not a constant either. Ideally it should be in the interest of the people to follow moral behavior. So there is no contradiction in a government attempting to enact the will of the people with moral guidelines as restrictions.
Constitutional democracies have so far achieved a greater degree of freedom than any other form of government, so I really doubt that oppression stands at the end of basing your society on moral ideas. Especially if you are talking about the idea of rendering assistance to people being oppressed.

[Ipse]

Ah Afghanistan, the place where empires go to die.

Eh, either way doesn't look good for NATO. Withdraw, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban regain strength, possibly another Islamic Emirate will arise in Afghanistan, or resume terrorist attacks on the nations of the Free World. Stay there and more NATO troops will take the fall, either by turncoats or extremists, money will be continued to be spent, or mundane political repercussions.