Is there any political ideology out there that is focused on human beings and their well-being...

>not seeing that the freedom of the market is the freedom of the people

We'll turn you into roadpitch when the revolution comes

>libertarians
>roads

no one said they got to use 'em

Yes I guess that is the underlying idea. But nobody ever talks about what is good for humanity. Marx spends hundreds of pages talking about what powers the workers have and how their products become alienated from them. Nozick rants about how the state has no right to meddle with their citizens, but he never talks about what one can do if there is no state to stop one and why that is good. Is there any philosopher, sociologist or author out there who sas, let's look at what is good or bad for the individual people and let's see how we can implement that? Because I think the individual and society should stand in the middle of any debate about economy and ideology.
Anarchism, minarchism and actual libertarianism are about personal freedoms. But freedoms can have good and bad consequences.

Utilitarianism

>Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. "Utility" is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well-being of sentient entities, such as human beings and other animals.

Utilitariansism.

>samefag
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory upon which a socio-political-economical structure can be built. But it is no such structure itself.
While I'm personally very much in favor of utilitarianism (namely in the form proposed by James Rachels in "Active and Passive Euthanasia"), I believe it must be supplemented by a form of virtue ethics with a spiritual basis. There are various strong arguments against pure utilitarianism for which there would be no solution otherwise.
What do you think is the political ideology that is most comprehensively built upon utilitarianism?

>Utilitarianism
>Like, best for the majority and stuff man
Literally a meme ideology that has no concrete theories on anything

It's called ideliasm, what Nozick representes.

National Socialism

>let's look at what is good or bad for the individual people and let's see how we can implement that?
Basically every ethics philosopher ever

Anarcho-primitivism. Read the Unabomber's manifesto.

Literally all of them. Altough there are some that do not qualify all of people as people and there are some that see transcendence from our world and focus on human well-being in that transcendece.

Med student here. Just read what you quoted. There's a huge flaw in his argument that he doesn't acknowledge in his examples. He works with a false premise that is
>If doctors believe it's terminal, then it is unquestionably terminal

There's no big difference between killing and letting die when the patient dies at the end. But had it been that the disease didn't killed the patient, then depend on your choice of action the patient will be dead or alive.

That is, this
>they're the same
argument only works from a retrospective point of view and only if you didn't kill the patient. For as we don't know what exactly will happen to the patient, it could be that you killed a patient that would have otherwise survived had you not intervened with a lethal injections.

This guy is fine and dandy with his philosophical absolutes but life doesn't works like that.

social democracy

Rachels is talking about cases in which it is absolutely certain that the patient will die. Terminal diseases with no chance of healing and cases of venerable age where the person doesn't have much time left no matter if they have lung cancer or not. That, and of course the patient has to demand being euthanized either as they are being treated or beforehand by a advance health care directive.
Thus, all cases in which there is a legitimate possibility of the patient not dying are ruled out from the get-go. It is a common practice to allow terminally ill people to sleep away peacefully within the constraints of the Hippocratic oath. Rachels argues that this practice might as well be replaced with active euthanasia because it is easier on the patient.
Furthermore, the text makes use of a broader argument that a deed in itself has no good or bad value. It is the intentions on one hand and the outcomes on the other hand that can make the deed good or bad.
Only on paper.

Yes there is, its called the Republican a
Party.

...

Have you looked into welfare economics?

>it is absolutely certain the patient will die
Such cases don't exist. Either he's wrongly assuming that dyagnoses and predictions can be made with a 100% certainty or he's talking about hipothetical absolute perfect situations that don't apply irl. The slightest bit of uncertainty (100% present in medicine) tumbles all his argument down.

I lived in a country with social democracy and was a orphan grew without any parents, homeless for a few years and went to youth prison. yet became succesfull. Name any other govermental form where that is possible.
Name

Oh and yes, i'm from a ethnic minority background.

Federal republics. Pretty much any governmental form desu. I know you think you're a special snowflake case, but rags to riches happens everywhere.

American libertarians aren't libertarian, they are individualistic authoritarians

>but rags to riches happens everywhere.
But i doubt, i'd have the same chances in America.
By the way i'm not living in a republic. no need to be butthurt about it.

>But i doubt, i'd have the same chances in America
You'd be wrong.

>no need to be butthurt about it
Not butthurt, just reminding you that you're not special. Rags to riches isn't some idea found only in social democracy. No need to be butthurt about that.

>anarchism
>far left
You have absolutely no clue what "left" or "right" mean in the political sense.

>yeah I'm a libertarian, I just think if I willingly do business with someone and then regret it afterwards, the government should step in and fix it for me xDDD
good one

>implying the government builds roads

>You'd be wrong.
USA has awful upper mobility. There are actual studies you could find if you searched. The favorite idea of Republicans is telling people to get better parents or stumble upon a private philanthropist.

No I have better things to do than search for social papers on that shit to win arguments.

>No I have better things to do than search for social papers on that shit to win arguments
More likely that either they don't fit your narrative or that you can barely read them judging by your English.

Social mobility has been decreasing for decades and itshas been proven to be lower in the states over euro countries

Surely you could provide a source then? The only sources that exist construe social mobility in a way that it loses all meaning or apply arbitrary metrics like marriage rates.