That cartoon reminded me of a discussion I had a long, long, time ago, when I was in graduate school, with a fellow student about voting. He said that each of us should vote based on our own narrow interests because that is the way that the democratic system works best. If each of us thought only of our own interests when voting, then the results would reflect the outcomes that the general population wants, whereas if we voted on the basis of what we think might be better for other people, then the results get skewed because we do not really know what other people actually want and are merely guessing, we only know for sure what we want.
I did not agree with him then but had to acknowledge that it was an interesting argument with a certain logic, the kind that geeky physicists would come up with.
The problem with it is how we define our own interests. When it comes to my personal finances, I have always belonged to the class that would benefit from lower taxes. But I never vote for a party whose main platform is a promise to cut taxes. I vote for parties that promise to provide greater social benefits for everyone (universal health care, unemployment benefits, support for child care, etc.), many of which I do not personally need or am unlikely to use and most of which would require me to pay higher taxes.
But that does not mean that I am not voting my own interests. It merely means that my chief desire is to live in a society that treats all its people well, where there is much greater income and wealth equality, where people have the basic necessities of life and do not have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or if they can pay the rest or stress that their lives will be destroyed by some major illness. Living in such a society would provide a huge psychological benefit to me that more money simply cannot provide. I would be much happier than if I were a wealthy person where all my personal needs can be met but am living amidst widespread poverty and suffering.
When people are asked in surveys about what issues they think is most important in an election, ‘the economy’ usually tops the list. I am not sure if I buy it. It may be that responders think that this is a good answer to give in that it makes them sound like serious people. While our personal financial interests are important (all of us would like to be financially secure), people often vote on the basis of things that do not affect them financially (at least in the short term) but do affect them socially and emotionally. So people’s vote will be driven by their feelings on climate change, race, gender and sexual identity, immigration, criminal justice, social justice, and so on. Most of those issues may not affect them personally in any tangible way.
The issue is that a vote is a single action while, other than for single issue voters, there may be many, many factors that have to be weighed in the balance before we arrive at that single decision. So my graduate school friend and I do not really disagree. We all vote in our own best interests. The difference lies in how we view those interests. When viewed more holistically, they may be very different from what we see when they are viewed narrowly in terms of our finances.
This is the thing that always strikes me about people who accuse others of “virtue-signalling” because they stand up for the rights of minorities to which they do not belong. It never seems to occur to them that we can have children, parents, family members, co-workers, acquaintances, who may, or do, belong to these minorities and we want our loved ones to be happy. It’s not that we’re devoid of self-interest. It’s that we are part of society, and we want the society of which we are a part to NOT be one where our loved ones can be ostracized for trivial reasons. I want a just society. That’s not because I’m super altruistic. It’s because I MYSELF want to live in a just society. It’s not “virtue-signalling” you beanheads; it’s “don’t do to others [or tolerate doing to others] what you would not want done to you”.
Neoclassical economics relies on the (false) assumption that everyone is psychopathically selfish: “interests” (or in the preferred term, “utility”) is defined in that narrow way, which comes close to equating it purely with financial returns -- and this assumption of indvidual complete selfishness has become deeply ingrained in capitalist culture, spreading its influence far beyond economics departments (although of course most people continue to violate it in their actions, and in fact social life would be impossible if they didn’t -- actual psychopaths are extremely disruptive). Neoclassical economists, if challenged on the implausibility of the assumption, will often resort to what I call the “neoclasical shuffle”: admitting that: “Oh of course, people can gain utilty from other people’s happiness”, but returning to the narrow definition as soon as only other neoclassical economists are looking. The shuffle, incidentally, doesn’t work, because neoclassical economics also requires that we all know what other people want, and use that knowledge to calculate what we should do -- but once it is admitted that people can have non-selfish wants, that assumption becomes obvious nonsense.
Exactly!
That doesn’t mean your not voting in your own self interest. Old School Republican economic theory holds that people should vote for helping the poor because that is in their own self interest to help build a strong society. That the rich should support a good schools system to educate the children of other people because it makes for an educated stable society, which helps the rich person.
This has been replaced with libertarian and objectivist thinking. Where the idea of the good of society being self interest is rejected and even the idea of society is questioned. Only short term personal self interest is considered good.
That is true but with economics there is also a big factor of people not understanding economics and the economy as a whole. People don’t understand that government budgets don’t work anything like personal budgets. That actions can do one thing when done by a single person and do something else when applied to the economy as a whole. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that big government programs will always have some corruption, the goal needs to be to make the program as effective as possible while keeping corruption under control not minimizing corruption at all costs. This results in people often voting for politicians that have more or less promised to crush them economically.
The intangible benefits of a safe and healthy society would seem to be of much greater value to the rich and wealthy because they have the most to lose. It seems that they would want to contribute more (pay their fair share) in order to maintain order. Here are just some of the “basics”: the world-wide protections their companies receive from the massive military industrial complex; the safety and security provided by local police; the access to a legal and justice system to secure their intellectual and corporate property; an infinite supply of workers available from a system that educates nearly all children to a basis competency level; the endless interstate highway system that allows quick transportation of their products, along with the shipping ports and rail system; the nationwide underground petroleum pipeline system for the distribution of gasoline and oil; a nearly nationwide wiring grid (don’t mess with texas) that provides 24/7 access to electrical power, etc.
Everyone benefits, directly or indirectly, from all of these services and more. It seems only natural that those who benefit the most would want to help maintain the “system” and improve the quality of life for all.
But a significant fraction of the general population can’t vote. How are the interests of children, for instance, represented under this scenario?
Furthermore, the results of elections aren’t determined by averaging the wishes of the voters. They only reflect the outcomes that a majority or plurality of the voting population wants. Combine that with gerrymandering, and it would be (and is) very easy to arrange situations where even a large minority’s interests are completely unrepresented.
Exactomundo… it’s not as if there’s a lot to think about.
For example, I even read about idiots who proudly declare: I am in fine health, why should I pay for those who are sick? A finest example of short-term stupidity and naive conceit I cannot conceive.
Best to have a general safety net than hoping that one’s means will be enough, as very few can prepare for any and all contingencies.
Even (some) economists agree! If I remember correctly, none other than J.K.Galbraith pointed out that he preferred to walk the streets and sleep at home knowing that he was not surrounded by a starving, desperate populace, ready to guzzle anyone for a few coins. Therefore: public spending, thankyouverymuch.
Plus, the so-called “narrow interests”: the phrasing assumes that everyone, always, knows precisely what they are. And with so many turkeys voting for christmas all over the place, this is a very dubious assumption.
Me too , but I dont know if its true , even looking at it selfishly. Its true that i would get a few more $ if the rates were lowered , but its also true that if the rates were higher and enforced (such that Billionaires and companies that make a tons of profit but somehow pay little to no tax) , that i would personally benefit to quite a large extent.
Why do you not agree ? If true , the American conservatives would be out of a job!. the issue is people are convinced to vote against their interests -e.g. people vote against unions regularly even though its against their interests , working women vote for Republicans who would rather have them only at home, . Jewish people vote for politicians who consult with and support literal nazis , Army folk routinely vote for politicians who send them on needless wars and who send them thoughts and prayers when they need help and support. It may not be particularly moral , but it would work if people did vote exactly according to their interests -if a realistic objective way to rationalize multiple attributes could be done -- Many voters are convinced to become single issue voters is another problem.
There was an Indian journalist BusyBee(Behram Contractor) who had written a humorous article a long time ago during elections (which i wish I could find now but those were pre internet print newspaper only days) about his 20-30 odd list of criteria of who he would not vote for -that most liberal Indians would identify with and weep -- because we had long given up hope of finding someone with qualities that we wanted to vote for! and then how he was headed to the polling booth and he hoped to find a candidate who didnt run afoul of those dont.
So
1. Dont vote for nazi/fascist supporters
2. Dont vote for a convicted sexual assaulter or those who minimise it.
.. actually dont need any more for most US elections.
kenny256 @#5
Where do you live that has this?