Which political and economic system do you think would best express utilitarian principles?

I'm currently of the opinion that that the best political system would be one that is superficially similar most developed countries , but with more taxation and it would funnel the most of the taxed income into supporting the best charities. I'm not entirely sure which economic policies would generate the moist income for this purpose. Other than that the political system would have extremely liberal social policies and nearly unrestricted immigration.

Are you asking the kind of government a utilitarian would try to set up to work well after he leaves, or the kind of government that would result from a utilitarian dictator?

The government would clearly be better if they donated more money to good charities, but I don't trust the government to find good charities.

Given the reality of human nature, a government with utilitarian values would probably leave strong private liberties to individuals, based on legal rights. At the same time, it would step in on behalf of those who can't rationally utilize such rights on their own behalf, e.g. small children, non-human animals, the mentally ill etc.

The processes of such a government must be transparent. Use of force must be restricted by law and visible to the public. Censorship and obstructions of individual communication must be highly illegal, maybe with rare exceptions such as killervirus genomes etc. This is all about checks and balances, given human nature.

Redistribution would happen, but it would be restricted to maintain a poverty-relieving baseline; the costs would be carried mostly by those rich enough to be able to opt out of any unpleasant interaction (e.g. people who never have to work again, but choose to do so anyway).

I don't see reproduction and immigration as unconditional personal liberties, but it's not clear to me what policies in these areas would be utility-maximizing, and who should decide. It's possible that humans will show a below-replacement fertility in the future, but maybe not in the very long run. Since I think a government should guarantee above-subsistence resources for all sentient creatures in its sphere of influence (but no luxury or inefficiency), it should also have the ability to control the total number of such creatures that can be in existence within that sphere. This should happen fairly, non-violently and transparently, but laissez-faire is not necessarily the right answer for all circumstances.

This is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. Most political theorists try to find a form of government that maximizes utility in a limited sense (i.e. only for citizens of this nation), and there is great disagreement on that point. I think there are two main differences between what people generally try to achieve in government and what a utilitarian would try to achieve:

1. People usually want a government that supports the citizens' interests, but give little regard to citizens of other nations or non-human animals.

2. People sometimes want government to support their personal interests. This one is more limited than the first, because people generally want fair government. But people still sometimes want government policy that works in their best interest at the expense of the nation, e.g. rich people tend to prefer lower taxes for the rich.

As for my personal opinion on this matter:

Historically, if you attempt to legislate morality, people won't support it unless they already agree with that morality. So legislating utilitarianism is no good. It looks like the best system is one that supports individual rights. It would almost certainly be socially liberal, and probably favor socialist or quasi-socialist economic policies.

MTGandP wrote: It would almost certainly be socially liberal, and probably favor socialist or quasi-socialist economic policies.

Why the socialism? To steer away from a meritocratic foundation of economic policies seems like a recipe for inefficiency and therefore misery. Utilitarians generally favor poverty relief, but I think there is such a thing as too much redistribution. Most actual humans don't work terribly hard for idealism.

Your question cannot be answered as framed because the observed nature of a political system depends on the value system that precedes utilitarianism. For example, if you think that taking money from people through taxation is onerous and detestable, then a utilitarian might adopt views similar to those of libertarians. If you believe that taxing people is not especially painful relative to starving to death, and you also believe that giving money to starving people has good long-term benefits, then you might be a social liberal. If you believe that giving money to starving people creates a culture of free-riding and hardship for the next generation and you also believe that making people skip a few meals is an effective way to motivate people to care for themselves and teach their children to do the same, then you might adopt views similar to those of a capitalistic conservative. Even dictatorship might be viewed as preferable if the dictator is the only one who has the power to stop clans from killing each other (Hobbes and early Chinese philosophers said something like this but were thinking of kings and queens).