democracy, is it really such a good thing?

[anonymous-user]

I disagree. Many people vote for what they want for others. Also, wanting things for others is often a rational choice. Altruism can be a form of self interest.

[otolith]

They certainly do - however, given that others also have a vote, does that not risk producing a government which is suboptimal in utilitarian terms?

[NomduJour]

Breadvan72 said:

I disagree. Many people vote for what they want for others. Also, wanting things for others is often a rational choice. Altruism can be a form of self interest.

Indeed, many will vote Labour because they want those rich bds to pay a mansion tax and hand over 50% of their earnings to nice Mr Balls. It's for their own good.

[xjsdriver]

NomduJour said:

Breadvan72 said:

I disagree. Many people vote for what they want for others. Also, wanting things for others is often a rational choice. Altruism can be a form of self interest.

Indeed, many will vote Labour because they want those rich bds to pay a mansion tax and hand over 50% of their earnings to nice Mr Balls. It's for their own good.

I'm with BV on this.....many people vote for what they see as the good for society and put their own personal circumstances aside for the betterment of the community as a whole. Then you have the selfish voter - who votes for him, or herself - with flagrant disregard for others. It is this me, me, me attitude that has got the country into the mess it is.

[Moonhawk]

xjsdriver said:

It is this me, me, me attitude that has got the country into the mess it is.

You mean like:

'It's Scotland's oil - we want to keep it all to ourselves and be one of the richest nations in the world, rather than try and make a net contribution into the union from which we have benefited and where many of our fellow countrymen live'

That kind of thing.

You know what - I couldn't agree more.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 23 September 08:58

[Wrathalanche]

xjsdriver said:

I'm with BV on this.....many people vote for what they see as the good for society and put their own personal circumstances aside for the betterment of the community as a whole. Then you have the selfish voter - who votes for him, or herself - with flagrant disregard for others. It is this me, me, me attitude that has got the country into the mess it is.

The problem I see with that at first glance is that it starts to get to the idea that altruism is a quality only present in the priviledged, and that selfishness is required within a certain voting group.

Let's suppose there's a peaceful society of forward thinking people. 49% are wealthy, 51% are poor.

The wealthy feel guilty for the poor's plight.
The poor feel like a burden on the wealthy.
Each vote selflessly, backing policies that will benefit only the other group.

What has been achieved?

My argument would be very little, and that nobody did anyone any favours by presuming to be voting on behalf of the other.
So "me, me, me" is OK for some, and not for others if you want to get anything done. The problem will always come when you try to draw the dividing line on who gets the moral pass to vote for themselves.

[WreckedGecko]

bhstewie said:

Scuffers said:

in the absence of another measure, <100 should be banned from voting.

But they can pay taxes or fight and die for our country and that's OK?

My Uncle was drafted and sent out to Vietnam when he was 17. He couldn't vote. Or drink.

I think it was the second bit he was more pissed off about.