| > What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. 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. |