Is voting inherently altruistic?
I'm reading a book that describes what happened fundamentally to voting in the US and how disenfranchisement, framing, and resentment have allowed major corporations and political parties to dominate polling groups to vote for their own interests. This process has been going on since allegedly the 1980's with Reagan and a constant desire to nullify the electorate's altruistic motivations for voting for higher taxes.
Essentially, the issue of taxes has been highly altruistic. We need money to pay for more social services so we're going to raise taxes on certain goods or income. It can be argued that the 1950's were historically a period of altruistic voting for democratic societies especially the US. With time, this was regarded as irrational by Republicans; but, not Democrats who recognized that altruism is what fuels the future for people to prosper from public goods created from taxing everyone at a higher rate.
Europe however, has remained steadfast in altruistic voting towards public goods and spending on the population to benefit from.
So, would you agree with the notion that voting is altruistic, or in the least that voting should be altruistic? Why or why not?
Essentially, the issue of taxes has been highly altruistic. We need money to pay for more social services so we're going to raise taxes on certain goods or income. It can be argued that the 1950's were historically a period of altruistic voting for democratic societies especially the US. With time, this was regarded as irrational by Republicans; but, not Democrats who recognized that altruism is what fuels the future for people to prosper from public goods created from taxing everyone at a higher rate.
Europe however, has remained steadfast in altruistic voting towards public goods and spending on the population to benefit from.
So, would you agree with the notion that voting is altruistic, or in the least that voting should be altruistic? Why or why not?
Comments (72)
Civilised societies realise that looking after other folk is sometimes worthwhile even if it does not serve one's own interests.
At the core of democracy is the notion that we are in this together and together we can build a common wealth. The myth of 'enlightened self-interest' is a curse that undermines that common wealth. It is the root of the ongoing failure of your democracy.
A factor in whether voters here or there support spending is whether they view the State as an appropriate tool with which to fashion a good society. Northern voters, following the lead of the New England Puritans who strongly believed in the utility of the State. (New Englanders moved westward and influenced the politics of the states they helped create and populate.). The South followed the opposite tendency, and tend to view the State as an unfriendly burden.
One could say Northern voters tend to be more altruistic than Southern voters, or one could say that Northern voters prefer a more secular and well organized society than Southern voters.
There are limits of course. Northern voters usually support generous spending on education, but if the school board asks for too much too often, they will vote down levy proposals.
Paradoxically conservative southern states that are opposed to government spending tend to receive more from the federal budget (and give less) than liberal states that receive less and give more. They tend to have more military bases than northern states, and they tend to have more needs that federal programs address than northern states.
Amen, Brother. :up:
I would vote in favor of altruism, but I haven't seen it on the ballot. People vote in favor of their own interests (as they should) and they vote in favor of others' interests to the extent that they can relate to them.
An altruistic heterosexual voter may vote for a gay rights fair housing law because they can relate to gay people needing housing. The vote isn't going to cost them anything, financially or psychologically.
That same voter may vote against a tax proposal to build affordable housing in their city because they do not want poor people to move there (or blacks, hispanics, or asians). They don't wish homelessness on minorities, they just want them to be decently housed somewhere else. This bill will cost them something psychologically or financially, or both,
Otherwise altruistic people can organize in a flash if a non-profit wants to open a group home in their neighborhood for released offenders, recovering drug addicts, sex offenders, or former mafioso. No, no, no! We need to protect women and children from these menaces! Keep the sons of bitches in prison!
Ah, yes. The non-existent fairytale of welfare kings and queens living off your dime or 0.0001 cents.
Apparently someone might call this socialism. Isn't it? Anyway, I have no issues with altruism when facing problems or issues to solve. There are things that are of higher value to me than the profit-motive, and unfortunately the myth that voting is virtue signaling at its core, is true, but during the 50's virtue signaling through voting was never so cool to do.
Quoting Banno
More precisely, the notion of enlightened self-interest originated in the past with the arrival of the marketplace. One does dealings with X irrespective of X's heritage or biases towards X, and both parties end up happy as long as the deal can be ratified legally through legal tender issues by and from a common government. Anyway, what's so wrong with enlightened self-interest in your opinion?
What makes you say that voting should be based off of self-interest? Much of the issues separate from the certain death and taxes, require a semblance of altruism to function for the benefit of other people. I mean, social issues are raised by propositions in my state of California. However, if one disregards the importance of altruism in voting, do we end up with more polarization between voting parties?
Quoting Bitter Crank
So, what gives? Is this about dominating interests or political forces coercing people to vote in a certain way?
Why would anyone knowingly vote against their self interest? Self-interest can be define extremely narrowly, like Ebenezer Scrooge, or more broadly. I define it broadly. It's in my best interests, broadly defined, to have programs for released offenders, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. I don't have children, but it's in my broader self-interest to have children well educated. I don't drive, but it's in my broader self-interest to have safe roads and less traffic. And so on.
Spanish-speakers may want their state to make Spanish an official language, so it would be easier for them to deal with the state. I don't believe that is in my broader self-interest, so I wouldn't vote for that. I might prefer that everyone speak English in public.
Quoting Shawn
Well, sometimes dominating interests and political forces do attempt to coerce people to voter in a certain way. For example, in my home town, the school board wanted to build a new elementary school on land that some developers were "donating" (to improve their real estate project). The citizens of the town (pop. 2300) voted the proposal down three times in three years, but the school board kept bringing it back for a vote. In the fourth year they achieved their aim.
Major league team owners beg for a new stadium (paid for by taxpayers) while promising wonderful results and threatening dire outcomes if the damned thing isn't built. Or, maybe, they will move the team somewhere else.
Still, citizens quite often resist attempts to bend the will of the people. Minneapolis voters soundly defeated a demand by the Vikings for a new stadium. The owners went to the state legislature which forced Minneapolis to pay.
And 'Merica is allergic to the very word. Hence their present predicament, where their failure to build a common wealth has led to the break down of the health and education systems, and a vast schism between rich and poor.
Quoting Shawn
It did not get taken seriously as the Path to Righteousness until the Republicans pushed it through Reagan. Until then there was a belief in a common wealth. Now it is a dogma, an ideology.
The last forty years of US politics have been a disaster on a world-wide scale, and a tragedy for all. The rest of us need the US to get it's feet back under it, but it seems the only way you can see forward is more autocracy. By making "Socialism" a dirty word, you've shot off one foot.
For the sake of others.
Think on that question.
Oh for fuck's sake. No, Australia could do better, too. As far as we are in the thrall of the "Merican cultural hegemony, it is a constant battle to keep at least some public enterprises. But the OP, and the vast majority of the political conversations here, are about 'Merica.
I don't want to do a direct comparison of democratic and social policies, because it's irrelevant to the topic, and although Australia beats the US hands down the bloody Kiwis are ahead of us. It's embarrassing.
Not really. Europe is the land of austerity. That's controlled by the EU, which is not a democratic body.
Quoting Shawn
There are think tanks that influence policy more than elections do. Most people don't research issues. They just vote broadly liberal or conservative. Altruism has nothing to do with it.
Voting confers power. It can only go so far as to give a person or party the right to control and regulate and make decisions on your behalf. It serves no other function. Giving someone the right to control and regulate and make decisions on your behalf is not an act of altruism.
The act of voting itself can be no more altruistic than making a similar mark on any other piece of paper
Taxation is not altruistic because taking money from someone is an act of theft. Paying taxes isn’t an act of charity because, since you’ve conferred the power to the government to dispense with your wealth as it pleases, you could not know whether it goes towards an altruistic act, or towards purchasing missiles, bombing innocents, or wrongfully imprisoning an innocent man.
The whole altruism angle is humbug.
I suppose I am diluting the meaning of 'self interest' when I define it to include acting on the interests of others, at least to some degree. Feeding the birds is at once for the sake of birds, but also for my own sake, so there will be birds to see and hear. Feeding the poor is for the sake of the poor, but also for my own sake, so that the fabric of society is maintained--something I depend on, just like the poor depend on it.
What goes around comes around, as the cliche says. A narrowly focused pursuit of self-interest will likely have both benefits and deficiencies, neither guaranteed. Acting on behalf of others, for their sake, also has benefits and deficiencies, and they are not guaranteed in this case, either. In general, though, whatever we do to reduce brutality is worth doing, worth it to me, worth it to you.
Why would parents vote against a school levy when their own children needed the school? Likely because they believed lies and bad faith information. Why would childless people vote for the school? Because educated people (tend toward) more stability, more prosperity, better outcomes all round.
Think of it as a membership fee.
Ever noticed that folk who trot out the enlightened self-interest argument tend not to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, firemen...
Why, one wonders.
No thanks. I seek no membership in a social system that runs on exploitation. If you want to be altruistic you ought to stop delegating someone else to do it for you.
The rest of us are able to work together for common goals, and take pleasure in other folk meeting their potential. We understand that justice requires some redistribution. Taxation is far from perfect, but will suffice.
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but working together for common goals seems to me to involve a little more work and community than letting an institution skim from your income. In this arrangement the only folk meeting their potential is the state, and I fear it is at the expense of everyone else’s potential. Nor is there any justice in expropriating someone’s wealth and giving it to others. So the hut on the hill is yours.
Is it robbery to rob the robbing robber? Can human time qua toil be stolen?
Quoting NOS4A2
You are one of us and you are one of them, sought or unsought. That you call an us a them - this is the skeleton key to your sort of sentience.
Is there an us at all? Or is it all a them?
It's as if you would prefer no social system at all but your rank rank [sic] avidity on the forum quashes that line of argumentation.
It's plain you're in dire need of a social system.
How did you drag that out of my post?
Tell us, what is your view on climate change?
:clap:
A well-considered gem of wisdom!
Simple reason: You're gonna havta pay for him/her, willingly (taxes) or unwillingly (robbery). Why not just voluntarily pay him/her? You get brownie points for that! It makes perfect sense.
"Enlightened self-interest" hasn't bulked large in my life as I've lived it, and it isn't something I usually argue for. Individuals, families, communities, and societies work well to the extent that self-interest--blind or enlightened--isn't the primary modus operandi.
On the other hand, individuals do have real self-interests--even nurses, teachers, paramedics, firemen... Within limits there is nothing faulty about self-interests. Voting or acting against your own self-interest may be collectively harmful. Working class people without a pot to piss in are often swayed by propaganda to vote like Republican bankers. They rant and vote against unions, social welfare programs, more lenient prison sentences for minor property crimes, etc. etc. etc. They are, literally, voting against their self-interest and against everyone else's (except the Republican banker's).
Maybe they voted for it and therefore were able to reach such an alleged position by again exactly what you said. What is this idea that effort will never equal reward and it never should?
Would you steal someone’s wealth if there was no law or state prohibiting you from doing so?
If that special someone had far more than he needed and I and my kin had far less. It would be immoral not to steal from said heinous glutton as it would be an affront to the dignity of the self.
Quoting NOS4A2
Wealth accumulated via the exploitation of labor belongs not to the possessor but to the dispossessed.
Possessed - no matter how cutely the robber baron haloes his horns - does not signify justly possessed.
You are a thief.
The exploitation of labor is when you steal the fruits of someone else’s labor for your own benefit, like a thief, like a state.
Stay off the state's roads then. Do they have roads up there in the Arctic circle where you are?
Does it upset you when I criticize the state?
You’ve always been creepy. If you quit stealing my wealth I’ll quit using your roads.
I thought taxes paid for roads.
No. Even in areas where I think the state is legitimate, I have never once thought to myself “the government sure did a good job.”
The roads belong to the state. Aren't you stealing if you use them? if not, why not?
I would not be stealing if I use them because the roads are available to use by anyone, including those that don’t pay their taxes and foreigners. I would not be stealing anything because I have not taken anything that is not mine.
You're using the state's property. They license you as a driver and i assume register your vehicle. Looks like you two have come to an agreement. :up:
No agreement here. I register my vehicle, get a license, drive on their roads because I have no other option. :down:
You do. Arctic circle. Your chances of surviving there are much better than in the Amazon. Less competition for life. You'll need a rifle.
I much rather stay and convince you to stop stealing my wealth. It’s in both of our interests.
As long as you realize it's your choice. First and Foremost, Freedom is a Realization.
The fact that a slave could choose to escape his masters doesn't make him any more free. Perhaps we have different conceptions of freedom.
You've found your foot's chained to the guy next to you. That's shit luck. You'll have to discover the freedom of your soul until you get the chance to free your body. :up:
...Like a large corporation with a billionaire CEO paying starvation wages.
It seems we agree.
Says Sheriff NOS4A2 of Nottingham.
Don't die a Disney-villain death.
Altruism is when you act with the interests of everyone in mind. Everyone votes for some decision or group because they believe that they will benefit the interests of everyone. Whether or not what or who they have voted for succeeds at that does not change the fact that the voter was well-intentioned.
Everyone prefers, all else being equal:
Low taxes to high taxes.
More government spending to less.
Fiscal responsibility to irresponsibility.
Unfortunately, all else cannot be equal, and one can only have 2 of the 3 at once, and one gets what one doesn't want for the 3rd.
More unfortunately, it is quite likely that equal numbers of people, even with the understanding of this, will choose each option as their lowest priority. This has the result that there is a strong majority in favour of all 3 options, and even a sensible electorate votes for the impossible. (This is called 'the tragedy of the arithmetic'.)
Even more unfortunately, electorates are not always sensible.
Most unfortunately, politicians lie and make impossible promises.
But alas, and alack, I fear that most people vote selfishly for what they think will be to their economic advantage; poor people vote for high government spending, and the wealthy vote for low taxes. Altruistic people would tend to vote on behalf of poor people I guess, feeling that the wealthy will benefit less from an increase in wealth. But I doubt they form a majority of voters. So no, voting is not inherently altruistic.
I don’t think altruism is when you act with the interests of everyone in mind, especially when it comes to voting. To me, to suppose that one can know what the best interests of everyone in mind are, and that a vote can help to bring them about, is the height of egoism.
You missed the point. You don't own anything except in relation to those around you. SO it would not be your wealth.
I don’t get the point. I do not own anything except in relation to those around me because…
Narcissism would prevent someone seeing the role played by others in ownership.
Ignorance prevents one from giving reasons for his assertions. What role is played by others in ownership?
But I doubt that you are constitutional capable of understanding this.
If I own something, someone else does not. Wow. The clouds part and I am finally enlightened.
That’s exactly why I said there no justice in expropriating someone’s wealth and giving it to others.
I'm so pleased for you.
If I’m ever the last man on Earth I’ll be sure to remember your penetrating insight and denounce all ownership as meaningless. Thanks for that.
:sweat: What I said applies to me and me only. :grin:
The paradox of hair.
There's a dog, Timmy, hairy Timmy, Timmy's warm.
I zero in on one, single hair. I pluck it, nuthin' happens. Timmy's still warm: Timmy's temperature before I plucked that one hair is exactly the same as after I plucked it.
I now shave Timmy from snout to rump. Timmy's cold now.
My vote doesn't matter but no, it does matter!