|
In my last post titled 'The problem of morality' I realized the title itself is very moral. Not to condemn or support, just to observe...to understand. That is my hope for humanity. Just as my last post should have been titled 'An effect of morality' I write this one in the same spirit; to observe effects of current ideas/phenomena.
A very observable effect of democracy is it trains people extremely well to do one thing; receive. They can get so used to this idea that they forget the other part of living; to give back!
If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder  As an economy grows in quality and ease of life (like the US currently) I think this tends to trend towards people wanting to eliminate all pain from the system, and electing officials who are willing to do so. No school fees, no illegal immigrants, no crime, no pain, just joy.
This is neither good nor bad; in fact it is exactly the purpose of life itself; to eliminate/overcome problems! But I think there comes a certain point where the people are just so used to receiving/letting people solve all their problems that it ends up being a competition for whoever can give us the most free shit/stress free life.
"Let those who lead the people lead, and let the people's movements be unobstructed by demagogues. Let themselves be led into the plenitudes of the scientific age. Let there be just a little less bickering among those who have such a capacity for receiving and so little to offer. No good comes of all the public debate which the Americans consider so important in deciding a public issue. Deciding communal destiny by common vote is a good deal like choosing a wife by lottery"
-Author currently unknown
 
|
On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder
Many people vote for candidates who promise them short term benefits. Most candidates also focus on these short term benefits.
Anyone who is "in their right mind" should look for long term effects, even if it means a few short term hardships.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:A very observable effect of democracy is it trains people extremely well to do one thing; receive. They can get so used to this idea that they forget the other part of living; to give back! If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder
I feel like you are looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. You consider voting as strictly a rational decision, where the voter look at what the candidate are offering and the choose the most beneficial form him, but in almost every case the voter don't look at the candidate being neutral they already have a preference that is not rational. There is a study (I forgot the name of the author if it come back I will tell you) that demonstrate that there is a very high correlation between how you vote and how your children will vote and the goal of the study was to prove that the vote is determined by social construct and less by personal interest.
(Sorry if I made some mistake my English is not the best)
Edit : I can seem to find the study I was talking about. Maybe check someone like Bourdieu if you are interested in those things, or maybe even Lipset and Rokan and the "split" theories (I don't know if that is the word in English), the original theories is a bit old but other people have revitalize it. They will explain what I kind of said with a lot more nuance and clarity I can ever do.
Their is of course a lot of author on the other side that will said that only personal interest lead the voter, it is not an easy debate.
|
On March 25 2016 23:11 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:A very observable effect of democracy is it trains people extremely well to do one thing; receive. They can get so used to this idea that they forget the other part of living; to give back! If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder I feel like you are looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. You consider voting as strictly a rational decision, where the voter look at what the candidate are offering and the choose the most beneficial form him, but in almost every case the voter don't look at the candidate being neutral they already have a preference that is not rational. There is a study (I forgot the name of the author if it come back I will tell you) that demonstrate that there is a very high correlation between how you vote and how your children will vote and the goal of the study was to prove that the vote is determined by social construct and less by personal interest. (Sorry if I made some mistake my English is not the best) Edit : I can seem to find the study I was talking about. Maybe check someone like Bourdieu if you are interested in those things, or maybe even Lipset and Rokan and the "split" theories (I don't know if that is the word in English), the original theories is a bit old but other people have revitalize it. They will explain what I kind of said with a lot more nuance and clarity I can ever do. Their is of course a lot of author on the other side that will said that only personal interest lead the voter, it is not an easy debate.
I don't see how it is a debate at all! On one side you can argue they are voting with their personal interest in mind, then on the other they are voting for a candidate based on social construct...but isn't this with personal interest as well? Poorer people will usually vote Labour/Democrat because they help their social class, and opposite way for Republicans also. In both cases, for you individually to prosper or for your community to prosper, you benefit either way.... it is all about personal benefit
|
On March 25 2016 19:58 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder Many people vote for candidates who promise them short term benefits. Most candidates also focus on these short term benefits. Anyone who is "in their right mind" should look for long term effects, even if it means a few short term hardships.
Ah! but now you are taking a moral stand point! But we must observe the difference between what we think SHOULD happen, and what DOES happen. Most people prefer short term, mainly because they will benefit straight away and the future is always uncertain.
But mainly; I think we should stick to the chief observation of this post, which is that it makes people used to receiving and not giving!!
|
Canada8991 Posts
On March 26 2016 05:14 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 23:11 Nakajin wrote:On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:A very observable effect of democracy is it trains people extremely well to do one thing; receive. They can get so used to this idea that they forget the other part of living; to give back! If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder I feel like you are looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. You consider voting as strictly a rational decision, where the voter look at what the candidate are offering and the choose the most beneficial form him, but in almost every case the voter don't look at the candidate being neutral they already have a preference that is not rational. There is a study (I forgot the name of the author if it come back I will tell you) that demonstrate that there is a very high correlation between how you vote and how your children will vote and the goal of the study was to prove that the vote is determined by social construct and less by personal interest. (Sorry if I made some mistake my English is not the best) Edit : I can seem to find the study I was talking about. Maybe check someone like Bourdieu if you are interested in those things, or maybe even Lipset and Rokan and the "split" theories (I don't know if that is the word in English), the original theories is a bit old but other people have revitalize it. They will explain what I kind of said with a lot more nuance and clarity I can ever do. Their is of course a lot of author on the other side that will said that only personal interest lead the voter, it is not an easy debate. I don't see how it is a debate at all! On one side you can argue they are voting with their personal interest in mind, then on the other they are voting for a candidate based on social construct...but isn't this with personal interest as well? Poorer people will usually vote Labour/Democrat because they help their social class, and opposite way for Republicans also. In both cases, for you individually to prosper or for your community to prosper, you benefit either way.... it is all about personal benefit
Maybe I express myself badly, the point is that social construct can overcome benefit, for exemple where I grew up in a small town most of the less rich people will vote on the right, and those who vote more on the left are usualy people that have more money then average, mostly because the left is seen as an elitist party from the big city. So of course the people always vote for what they belive is good for them, but a lot of the time they will vote in the opposite side of what would naturaly be seen as their best interest(rich people votting labor, poor people voting right)
It was just to say that voting is more then watching the proposition and chose the one that is the most benefical to you. Of course it dosen't change the fact that people vote thinking it is their best interest, and that is the heart of the debate. Is the interest of a person something that you can mesure ex: giving taxes cut to the rich to taxe more the rest of the people is strictly a mesure that benefit the rich so the poor that vote for it are doing something against their interest, but you can also say that these people are voting for it because they belive in value that succes should not be penalise by the gouvernement (or more comonly that the other partys are idiot who are going to crash the contry and they don't even consider voting for them or checking their program) so they are still voting for their best interest, for their idea of the society they want.
My comentery was only on the "If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder " and actualy a lot of people seem to do that dependaing on your point of view.
Of course it dosen't change the fact that people still things they are voting in their best interest so the rest of your blog is still interesting no matter what 
|
On March 26 2016 07:30 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 05:14 firehand101 wrote:On March 25 2016 23:11 Nakajin wrote:On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:A very observable effect of democracy is it trains people extremely well to do one thing; receive. They can get so used to this idea that they forget the other part of living; to give back! If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder I feel like you are looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. You consider voting as strictly a rational decision, where the voter look at what the candidate are offering and the choose the most beneficial form him, but in almost every case the voter don't look at the candidate being neutral they already have a preference that is not rational. There is a study (I forgot the name of the author if it come back I will tell you) that demonstrate that there is a very high correlation between how you vote and how your children will vote and the goal of the study was to prove that the vote is determined by social construct and less by personal interest. (Sorry if I made some mistake my English is not the best) Edit : I can seem to find the study I was talking about. Maybe check someone like Bourdieu if you are interested in those things, or maybe even Lipset and Rokan and the "split" theories (I don't know if that is the word in English), the original theories is a bit old but other people have revitalize it. They will explain what I kind of said with a lot more nuance and clarity I can ever do. Their is of course a lot of author on the other side that will said that only personal interest lead the voter, it is not an easy debate. I don't see how it is a debate at all! On one side you can argue they are voting with their personal interest in mind, then on the other they are voting for a candidate based on social construct...but isn't this with personal interest as well? Poorer people will usually vote Labour/Democrat because they help their social class, and opposite way for Republicans also. In both cases, for you individually to prosper or for your community to prosper, you benefit either way.... it is all about personal benefit It was just to say that voting is more then watching the proposition and chose the one that is the most benefical to you. Of course it dosen't change the fact that people vote thinking it is their best interest, and that is the heart of the debate. Is the interest of a person something that you can mesure ex: giving taxes cut to the rich to taxe more the rest of the people is strictly a mesure that benefit the rich so the poor that vote for it are doing something against their interest, but you can also say that these people are voting for it because they belive in value that succes should not be penalise by the gouvernement (or more comonly that the other partys are idiot who are going to crash the contry and they don't even consider voting for them or checking their program) so they are still voting for their best interest, for their idea of the society they want.
I remember mi good 'ol days watching Ron Paul and Peter Schiff and Milton Friedman videos and fully adopting a Republican stance, even as a poor person! My logic went like this; the minimum wage should not rise and we should keep giving tax cuts to the rich, because that is how you create jobs and that is how we got this economy in the first place! The grass is always greener: no matter where you live, you will always be envious of the rich
But I'd rather it be in America where I'm jealous they have ferarris and I only have a Toyota, instead of Africa where I'm jealous of rich people having....clean water?!? My logic was to vote republican to have an economy WITH jobs and opportunity, so I always saw that in my best interest. I thought if minimum wages increased, we would start losing more jobs to overseas, and I wouldn't have a job to begin with!
Is all that rambling correct or incorrect? I don't know; all I wanted to show was that even when a poor person like myself votes Republican they are still thinking about themselves
|
Canada8991 Posts
On March 26 2016 08:49 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 07:30 Nakajin wrote:On March 26 2016 05:14 firehand101 wrote:On March 25 2016 23:11 Nakajin wrote:On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:A very observable effect of democracy is it trains people extremely well to do one thing; receive. They can get so used to this idea that they forget the other part of living; to give back! If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder I feel like you are looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. You consider voting as strictly a rational decision, where the voter look at what the candidate are offering and the choose the most beneficial form him, but in almost every case the voter don't look at the candidate being neutral they already have a preference that is not rational. There is a study (I forgot the name of the author if it come back I will tell you) that demonstrate that there is a very high correlation between how you vote and how your children will vote and the goal of the study was to prove that the vote is determined by social construct and less by personal interest. (Sorry if I made some mistake my English is not the best) Edit : I can seem to find the study I was talking about. Maybe check someone like Bourdieu if you are interested in those things, or maybe even Lipset and Rokan and the "split" theories (I don't know if that is the word in English), the original theories is a bit old but other people have revitalize it. They will explain what I kind of said with a lot more nuance and clarity I can ever do. Their is of course a lot of author on the other side that will said that only personal interest lead the voter, it is not an easy debate. I don't see how it is a debate at all! On one side you can argue they are voting with their personal interest in mind, then on the other they are voting for a candidate based on social construct...but isn't this with personal interest as well? Poorer people will usually vote Labour/Democrat because they help their social class, and opposite way for Republicans also. In both cases, for you individually to prosper or for your community to prosper, you benefit either way.... it is all about personal benefit It was just to say that voting is more then watching the proposition and chose the one that is the most benefical to you. Of course it dosen't change the fact that people vote thinking it is their best interest, and that is the heart of the debate. Is the interest of a person something that you can mesure ex: giving taxes cut to the rich to taxe more the rest of the people is strictly a mesure that benefit the rich so the poor that vote for it are doing something against their interest, but you can also say that these people are voting for it because they belive in value that succes should not be penalise by the gouvernement (or more comonly that the other partys are idiot who are going to crash the contry and they don't even consider voting for them or checking their program) so they are still voting for their best interest, for their idea of the society they want. I remember mi good 'ol days watching Ron Paul and Peter Schiff and Milton Friedman videos and fully adopting a Republican stance, even as a poor person! My logic went like this; the minimum wage should not rise and we should keep giving tax cuts to the rich, because that is how you create jobs and that is how we got this economy in the first place! The grass is always greener: no matter where you live, you will always be envious of the rich But I'd rather it be in America where I'm jealous they have ferarris and I only have a Toyota, instead of Africa where I'm jealous of rich people having....clean water?!? My logic was to vote republican to have an economy WITH jobs and opportunity, so I always saw that in my best interest. I thought if minimum wages increased, we would start losing more jobs to overseas, and I wouldn't have a job to begin with! Is all that rambling correct or incorrect? I don't know; all I wanted to show was that even when a poor person like myself votes Republican they are still thinking about themselves
Well I am far of having the truth hahaha, but yes it seems to make sense to me. I feel like a response to that would be something along the line of something like the fact that you (or anybody) sees a course of action as the best one, like liberalism to create more job is not necesserely the result of deep recherche of all the option but more of the society in wich you grew in. For exemple I know that personnaly I will most likely never vote right, because I fell like left solution are the best are more in the left spectrum, but so does a majority of people who did similar life trail as me.
I did not want to say that people don't recherche their personal interest in voting because it is clear that they do, but more that what is personal interest is influence (I personaly don't think it is the only decider by far, but some may say so) by your socio-ecomics placement.
Then if you adopt a more lets say "doctrinal" (probably not the right word to use) view of the world lets say marxist, then you can actually vote against your own interest because your interest are clearly indicated depending on where you are in society, they are objective. Of course only the other vote against their interest you never do.
You can also say that people decide where their personal interest are (accros social construct or not) but it is not as simple as voting for the guy that promise something benifical for you, because a lot of person are going to do that, what is interesting is where you see what is benificial for you, which I belive is part rational and analytics and part "social structuct". Maybe not just use to recive but use to chosing what we recive?
I could also just be fucking wrong all the way.
+ Show Spoiler +I am not use to write that much in English I hope it is still pretty clear
|
On March 26 2016 11:33 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2016 08:49 firehand101 wrote:On March 26 2016 07:30 Nakajin wrote:On March 26 2016 05:14 firehand101 wrote:On March 25 2016 23:11 Nakajin wrote:On March 25 2016 18:02 firehand101 wrote:A very observable effect of democracy is it trains people extremely well to do one thing; receive. They can get so used to this idea that they forget the other part of living; to give back! If a candidate promises something that will directly benefit YOU, then you will vote for them. Who in their right mind would vote for someone to make their lives harder I feel like you are looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. You consider voting as strictly a rational decision, where the voter look at what the candidate are offering and the choose the most beneficial form him, but in almost every case the voter don't look at the candidate being neutral they already have a preference that is not rational. There is a study (I forgot the name of the author if it come back I will tell you) that demonstrate that there is a very high correlation between how you vote and how your children will vote and the goal of the study was to prove that the vote is determined by social construct and less by personal interest. (Sorry if I made some mistake my English is not the best) Edit : I can seem to find the study I was talking about. Maybe check someone like Bourdieu if you are interested in those things, or maybe even Lipset and Rokan and the "split" theories (I don't know if that is the word in English), the original theories is a bit old but other people have revitalize it. They will explain what I kind of said with a lot more nuance and clarity I can ever do. Their is of course a lot of author on the other side that will said that only personal interest lead the voter, it is not an easy debate. I don't see how it is a debate at all! On one side you can argue they are voting with their personal interest in mind, then on the other they are voting for a candidate based on social construct...but isn't this with personal interest as well? Poorer people will usually vote Labour/Democrat because they help their social class, and opposite way for Republicans also. In both cases, for you individually to prosper or for your community to prosper, you benefit either way.... it is all about personal benefit It was just to say that voting is more then watching the proposition and chose the one that is the most benefical to you. Of course it dosen't change the fact that people vote thinking it is their best interest, and that is the heart of the debate. Is the interest of a person something that you can mesure ex: giving taxes cut to the rich to taxe more the rest of the people is strictly a mesure that benefit the rich so the poor that vote for it are doing something against their interest, but you can also say that these people are voting for it because they belive in value that succes should not be penalise by the gouvernement (or more comonly that the other partys are idiot who are going to crash the contry and they don't even consider voting for them or checking their program) so they are still voting for their best interest, for their idea of the society they want. I remember mi good 'ol days watching Ron Paul and Peter Schiff and Milton Friedman videos and fully adopting a Republican stance, even as a poor person! My logic went like this; the minimum wage should not rise and we should keep giving tax cuts to the rich, because that is how you create jobs and that is how we got this economy in the first place! The grass is always greener: no matter where you live, you will always be envious of the rich But I'd rather it be in America where I'm jealous they have ferarris and I only have a Toyota, instead of Africa where I'm jealous of rich people having....clean water?!? My logic was to vote republican to have an economy WITH jobs and opportunity, so I always saw that in my best interest. I thought if minimum wages increased, we would start losing more jobs to overseas, and I wouldn't have a job to begin with! Is all that rambling correct or incorrect? I don't know; all I wanted to show was that even when a poor person like myself votes Republican they are still thinking about themselves Well I am far of having the truth hahaha, but yes it seems to make sense to me. I feel like a response to that would be something along the line of something like the fact that you (or anybody) sees a course of action as the best one, like liberalism to create more job is not necesserely the result of deep recherche of all the option but more of the society in wich you grew in. For exemple I know that personnaly I will most likely never vote right, because I fell like left solution are the best are more in the left spectrum, but so does a majority of people who did similar life trail as me. I did not want to say that people don't recherche their personal interest in voting because it is clear that they do, but more that what is personal interest is influence (I personaly don't think it is the only decider by far, but some may say so) by your socio-ecomics placement. Then if you adopt a more lets say "doctrinal" (probably not the right word to use) view of the world lets say marxist, then you can actually vote against your own interest because your interest are clearly indicated depending on where you are in society, they are objective. Of course only the other vote against their interest you never do. You can also say that people decide where their personal interest are (accros social construct or not) but it is not as simple as voting for the guy that promise something benifical for you, because a lot of person are going to do that, what is interesting is where you see what is benificial for you, which I belive is part rational and analytics and part "social structuct". Maybe not just use to recive but use to chosing what we recive? I could also just be fucking wrong all the way. + Show Spoiler +I am not use to write that much in English I hope it is still pretty clear
you may be right... but it's too hard to think about and Ill fry my brain
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
