|
|
|
|
|
|
by yui43
1882 days ago
|
|
|
What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Serving yourself is the entire point since we have structured nearly all of human existence around incentive instead of command. Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) because it helps the person making the suggestion is like being angry at the sky for being blue. The incentives produced the outcome and should in no way surprise you. That’s why people who act selflessly are notable. You’ve got this backwards. Selflessness is notable. Selfishness is par until all of Maslow’s is handed to you free of charge. Noticing someone is advocating for an improvement to their situation, even disingenuously, is equally pointless with that in mind. People do things in their interest because that’s how we have built human civilizations that pay any respect to the concept of freedom. If the suggestion benefits others, maybe go with it? Or build a civilization where everyone can be selfless all the time and have no self-serving motives; that sounds pretty great until you get to the “how to direct an economy” part of the equation. |
|
|
Not totally, no. We are social animals. Also look at people who vote against their own financial benefit. I do.
But also it's not as direct. If I pay some more in taxes (along with everyone else) the idea is that I'll get to live in a better society. Something I could not otherwise buy.
> Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively)
That's not what I said. I said take it into consideration. You're being hyperbolic.
In real life I want to reduce inequality because it's the right thing to do. If you don't believe that you can say that it's because I want to reduce the risk of me personally being victim of crime, and inequality breeds crime.
Are you honestly unaware of the concept of "conflict of interest"?
I'll throw you back another name: Occam. If you are arguing lowering taxes, because of a complicated Goldberg machine of an explanation on how it'll help the poor, maybe after having considered it all I'll find the explanation "and you'll gain $100k a year from it" to be a more plausible reason, and I'll be less likely to take the parts of the Rube Goldberg machine I didn't understand, or am hesitant about, at your word.