:thumbs up: New York

[Tupac Shakur]

What if a majority of constituents wants to make people less happy (as I assume many people would argue happened in California with Prop 8)? Does government have an obligation to make people less happy if a majority demands it? Or does the happiness of the majority of same-sex marriage opponents outweigh the unhappiness of same-sex marriage proponents? And what metric are we using for "happiness", anyway?

[giblets]

Well, if you think the government should just do whatever the majority asks then if the majority wants the government to make people miserable then ruining lives becomes an important issue for the government to tackle.

[Tupac Shakur]

Which is why I don't think "happiness" is an important priority for government, even in a democracy.

[giblets]

What exactly is your evidence that voters don't want people to be happier?

[Tupac Shakur]

I'll provide evidence once you provide a coherent definition for what you mean by "happiness".

[giblets]

Is this a joke? I think most people have experienced happiness in the past and know what it means. Sorry if you haven't.

[Tupac Shakur]

This is why I ignore you. Come back when you have more to offer.

[giblets]

I'm not the one whose argument consists of "durr I don't know what happiness means and think it's an incoherent concept"

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm not here to discuss filosofy.

[giblets]

I can tell by the way you claim people need to come up with a definition for happiness

[Jon Miller]

I think this is the way to do it.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I disagree. Not sure how we can really advance this debate, however.

Didn't you do econ/policy grad school? Isn't vaguely defined utilitarianism the unspoken premise of pretty much every analysis you guys do?

[Tupac Shakur]

I didn't even go to college. You must have me confused with Kanye.

[DaShi]

It shows.

[giblets]

I didn't even go to college. You must have me confused with Kanye.