- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,244
- Reaction score
- 6,619
This is something I've been meaning to put out there, because nobody seems to think this way around here. It's basically an inversion of the Trustee vs. Delegate problem.
As a thought experiment, a few scenarios:
You are voting in a three-person election about a new law that only affects the three of you. The law would benefit you, but would harm the other two people. You also know that the other two people are not fully aware that the law would harm them, and their votes are uncertain. How do you campaign and vote?
Same process, but this time you're not confident whether or not you or other people will be harmed by the law. The other two votes are split, and the smarter of the two - the 'yes' vote - is more persuasive. You can't argue against his position. How do you vote?
Same process, but this time the law hurts you and helps the other two, and also increases the effectiveness of the group. You can likely persuade them to your side. What do you do?
Insert other scenarios of increasing complexity until head asplode here __________
..........
The prevailing opinion in America and most democratic, capitalist societies is that we should vote in our own best interest and let the chips fall. It grants us the excesses of capitalism. But even when we boil it down to something as simple as the above examples, it may not be clear what we should do, and our IRL votes at the polls do not necessarily reflect our ethics as decided hypothetically.
I might believe strongly in some proposition, but not feel like that should be the law of the land. It might be right for my state but not the other 49, etc.
I might feel one way, but not feel informed enough to give my vote with a clear conscience (nobody ever acknowledges this, especially low IQ Boomers). Or perhaps I know that even though I am somewhat ignorant, I'm better off than average voters, so my participation in the vote would raise the average level of information and intelligence that cast that vote.
You could relate the first and third scenarios to tax cuts and raises, or however else you think they might apply. The second scenario might relate to anything you're on the fence about.
Is it right to attempt to coerce others into conforming to my bias? It has to be right some of the time, or else democracy is wrong. Voting is an act of violence with a horizon for predictable consequences, in that sense.
Anyway, what is most beneficial for me (either financially or mentally), best by my ethics, or best for the society may all be in conflict with one another. Does anybody consider those things, and do you have a way that you boil it down to a yes/no/abstain?
As a thought experiment, a few scenarios:
You are voting in a three-person election about a new law that only affects the three of you. The law would benefit you, but would harm the other two people. You also know that the other two people are not fully aware that the law would harm them, and their votes are uncertain. How do you campaign and vote?
Same process, but this time you're not confident whether or not you or other people will be harmed by the law. The other two votes are split, and the smarter of the two - the 'yes' vote - is more persuasive. You can't argue against his position. How do you vote?
Same process, but this time the law hurts you and helps the other two, and also increases the effectiveness of the group. You can likely persuade them to your side. What do you do?
Insert other scenarios of increasing complexity until head asplode here __________
..........
The prevailing opinion in America and most democratic, capitalist societies is that we should vote in our own best interest and let the chips fall. It grants us the excesses of capitalism. But even when we boil it down to something as simple as the above examples, it may not be clear what we should do, and our IRL votes at the polls do not necessarily reflect our ethics as decided hypothetically.
I might believe strongly in some proposition, but not feel like that should be the law of the land. It might be right for my state but not the other 49, etc.
I might feel one way, but not feel informed enough to give my vote with a clear conscience (nobody ever acknowledges this, especially low IQ Boomers). Or perhaps I know that even though I am somewhat ignorant, I'm better off than average voters, so my participation in the vote would raise the average level of information and intelligence that cast that vote.
You could relate the first and third scenarios to tax cuts and raises, or however else you think they might apply. The second scenario might relate to anything you're on the fence about.
Is it right to attempt to coerce others into conforming to my bias? It has to be right some of the time, or else democracy is wrong. Voting is an act of violence with a horizon for predictable consequences, in that sense.
Anyway, what is most beneficial for me (either financially or mentally), best by my ethics, or best for the society may all be in conflict with one another. Does anybody consider those things, and do you have a way that you boil it down to a yes/no/abstain?
Last edited:
