Essentially, the issue of taxes has been highly altruistic. We need money to pay for more social services — Shawn

For the enlightened adult, altruism and self-interest merge, and often in concrete ways. For Americans, all this was covered by Daniel Webster in his 2d reply to Hayne, 1830. A long speech but worth the read if you can find it - this seems complete:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Great_Speeches_and_Orations_of_Daniel_Webster/The_Reply_to_Hayne

As an example of altruism with a concrete self-interested benefit, one need look no further than at unemployment benefits. The small minded will cavil and object, "Why should I pay for him (or her)?" Notwithstanding that the question is itself based on a wrong understanding, the short answer is so that he or she will not come and from necessity and by force take yours.

There's your problem: self-interest.

Civilised societies realise that looking after other folk is sometimes worthwhile even if it does not serve one's own interests.

At the core of democracy is the notion that we are in this together and together we can build a common wealth. The myth of 'enlightened self-interest' is a curse that undermines that common wealth. It is the root of the ongoing failure of your democracy.

Americans, on a broad average, tend to be more liberal than their elected representatives. (Note, this is a very qualified generalization.). When voting, they tend to accept liberal (generous) spending programs. Yes, there are exceptions and there are regional differences. The degree to which voters in Massachusetts and Minnesota support liberal spending will be much higher than what voters in Mississippi or Alabama will support.

A factor in whether voters here or there support spending is whether they view the State as an appropriate tool with which to fashion a good society. Northern voters, following the lead of the New England Puritans who strongly believed in the utility of the State. (New Englanders moved westward and influenced the politics of the states they helped create and populate.). The South followed the opposite tendency, and tend to view the State as an unfriendly burden.

One could say Northern voters tend to be more altruistic than Southern voters, or one could say that Northern voters prefer a more secular and well organized society than Southern voters.

There are limits of course. Northern voters usually support generous spending on education, but if the school board asks for too much too often, they will vote down levy proposals.

Paradoxically conservative southern states that are opposed to government spending tend to receive more from the federal budget (and give less) than liberal states that receive less and give more. They tend to have more military bases than northern states, and they tend to have more needs that federal programs address than northern states.

Civilised societies realise that looking after other folk is sometimes worthwhile even if it does not serve one's own interests. — Banno

Amen, Brother. :up:

So, would you agree with the notion that voting is altruistic, or in the least that voting should be altruistic? Why or why not? — Shawn

I would vote in favor of altruism, but I haven't seen it on the ballot. People vote in favor of their own interests (as they should) and they vote in favor of others' interests to the extent that they can relate to them.

An altruistic heterosexual voter may vote for a gay rights fair housing law because they can relate to gay people needing housing. The vote isn't going to cost them anything, financially or psychologically.

That same voter may vote against a tax proposal to build affordable housing in their city because they do not want poor people to move there (or blacks, hispanics, or asians). They don't wish homelessness on minorities, they just want them to be decently housed somewhere else. This bill will cost them something psychologically or financially, or both,

Otherwise altruistic people can organize in a flash if a non-profit wants to open a group home in their neighborhood for released offenders, recovering drug addicts, sex offenders, or former mafioso. No, no, no! We need to protect women and children from these menaces! Keep the sons of bitches in prison!

As an example of altruism with a concrete self-interested benefit, one need look no further than at unemployment benefits. The small minded will cavil and object, "Why should I pay for him (or her)?" — tim wood

Ah, yes. The non-existent fairytale of welfare kings and queens living off your dime or 0.0001 cents.

At the core of democracy is the notion that we are in this together and together we can build a common wealth. — Banno

Apparently someone might call this socialism. Isn't it? Anyway, I have no issues with altruism when facing problems or issues to solve. There are things that are of higher value to me than the profit-motive, and unfortunately the myth that voting is virtue signaling at its core, is true, but during the 50's virtue signaling through voting was never so cool to do.

The myth of 'enlightened self-interest' is a curse that undermines that common wealth. It is the root of the ongoing failure of your democracy. — Banno

More precisely, the notion of enlightened self-interest originated in the past with the arrival of the marketplace. One does dealings with X irrespective of X's heritage or biases towards X, and both parties end up happy as long as the deal can be ratified legally through legal tender issues by and from a common government. Anyway, what's so wrong with enlightened self-interest in your opinion?

I would vote in favor of altruism, but I haven't seen it on the ballot. People vote in favor of their own interests (as they should) and they vote in favor of others' interests to the extent that they can relate to them. — Bitter Crank

What makes you say that voting should be based off of self-interest? Much of the issues separate from the certain death and taxes, require a semblance of altruism to function for the benefit of other people. I mean, social issues are raised by propositions in my state of California. However, if one disregards the importance of altruism in voting, do we end up with more polarization between voting parties?

Otherwise altruistic people can organize in a flash if a non-profit wants to open a group home in their neighborhood for released offenders, recovering drug addicts, sex offenders, or former mafioso. No, no, no! We need to protect women and children from these menaces! Keep the sons of bitches in prison! — Bitter Crank

So, what gives? Is this about dominating interests or political forces coercing people to vote in a certain way?

What makes you say that voting should be based off of self-interest? — Shawn

Why would anyone knowingly vote against their self interest? Self-interest can be define extremely narrowly, like Ebenezer Scrooge, or more broadly. I define it broadly. It's in my best interests, broadly defined, to have programs for released offenders, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. I don't have children, but it's in my broader self-interest to have children well educated. I don't drive, but it's in my broader self-interest to have safe roads and less traffic. And so on.

Spanish-speakers may want their state to make Spanish an official language, so it would be easier for them to deal with the state. I don't believe that is in my broader self-interest, so I wouldn't vote for that. I might prefer that everyone speak English in public.

So, what gives? Is this about dominating interests or political forces coercing people to vote in a certain way? — Shawn

Well, sometimes dominating interests and political forces do attempt to coerce people to voter in a certain way. For example, in my home town, the school board wanted to build a new elementary school on land that some developers were "donating" (to improve their real estate project). The citizens of the town (pop. 2300) voted the proposal down three times in three years, but the school board kept bringing it back for a vote. In the fourth year they achieved their aim.

Major league team owners beg for a new stadium (paid for by taxpayers) while promising wonderful results and threatening dire outcomes if the damned thing isn't built. Or, maybe, they will move the team somewhere else.

Still, citizens quite often resist attempts to bend the will of the people. Minneapolis voters soundly defeated a demand by the Vikings for a new stadium. The owners went to the state legislature which forced Minneapolis to pay.

Apparently someone might call this socialism. Isn't it? — Shawn

And 'Merica is allergic to the very word. Hence their present predicament, where their failure to build a common wealth has led to the break down of the health and education systems, and a vast schism between rich and poor.

...the notion of enlightened self-interest originated in the past with the arrival of the marketplace. — Shawn

It did not get taken seriously as the Path to Righteousness until the Republicans pushed it through Reagan. Until then there was a belief in a common wealth. Now it is a dogma, an ideology.

The last forty years of US politics have been a disaster on a world-wide scale, and a tragedy for all. The rest of us need the US to get it's feet back under it, but it seems the only way you can see forward is more autocracy. By making "Socialism" a dirty word, you've shot off one foot.

Why would anyone knowingly vote against their self interest? — Bitter Crank

For the sake of others.

The myth of 'enlightened self-interest' is a curse that undermines that common wealth. It is the root of the ongoing failure of your democracy. — Banno

Whose democracy? And it appears we have opposed understandings of enlightened self-interest. Can you please clarify your sentence? Is the myth the curse, and that because (you hold) it is a myth? Do you agree with me that unemployment benefits are an example of enlightened self-interest? (Apparently not, if it's a myth....)

Whose democracy? — tim wood

Think on that question.

Well, how's Australia, or even that part of it where you live, doing on enlightened self-interest? I'm asking. I supposed you-all have plenty of programs that benefit some but not all, for the over-all benefit of all. Unemployment benefits, food programs, public education and public universities, public libraries, infrastructure projects of all kinds, medical programs for all sorts of people. You have these and many more, yes?

how's Australia, or even that part of it where you live, doing on enlightened self-interest? — tim wood

Oh for fuck's sake. No, Australia could do better, too. As far as we are in the thrall of the "Merican cultural hegemony, it is a constant battle to keep at least some public enterprises. But the OP, and the vast majority of the political conversations here, are about 'Merica.

I don't want to do a direct comparison of democratic and social policies, because it's irrelevant to the topic, and although Australia beats the US hands down the bloody Kiwis are ahead of us. It's embarrassing.

Europe however, has remained steadfast in altruistic voting towards public goods and spending on the population to benefit from. — Shawn

Not really. Europe is the land of austerity. That's controlled by the EU, which is not a democratic body.

So, would you agree with the notion that voting is altruistic, or in the least that voting should be altruistic? Why or why not? — Shawn

There are think tanks that influence policy more than elections do. Most people don't research issues. They just vote broadly liberal or conservative. Altruism has nothing to do with it.

Voting confers power. It can only go so far as to give a person or party the right to control and regulate and make decisions on your behalf. It serves no other function. Giving someone the right to control and regulate and make decisions on your behalf is not an act of altruism.

The act of voting itself can be no more altruistic than making a similar mark on any other piece of paper

Taxation is not altruistic because taking money from someone is an act of theft. Paying taxes isn’t an act of charity because, since you’ve conferred the power to the government to dispense with your wealth as it pleases, you could not know whether it goes towards an altruistic act, or towards purchasing missiles, bombing innocents, or wrongfully imprisoning an innocent man.

The whole altruism angle is humbug.

For the sake of others. — Banno

I suppose I am diluting the meaning of 'self interest' when I define it to include acting on the interests of others, at least to some degree. Feeding the birds is at once for the sake of birds, but also for my own sake, so there will be birds to see and hear. Feeding the poor is for the sake of the poor, but also for my own sake, so that the fabric of society is maintained--something I depend on, just like the poor depend on it.

What goes around comes around, as the cliche says. A narrowly focused pursuit of self-interest will likely have both benefits and deficiencies, neither guaranteed. Acting on behalf of others, for their sake, also has benefits and deficiencies, and they are not guaranteed in this case, either. In general, though, whatever we do to reduce brutality is worth doing, worth it to me, worth it to you.

Why would parents vote against a school levy when their own children needed the school? Likely because they believed lies and bad faith information. Why would childless people vote for the school? Because educated people (tend toward) more stability, more prosperity, better outcomes all round.

You own nothing unless others agree. Property is a convention within your social system, which also creates the money you claim to own. Taxation is your contribution to that system .

Think of it as a membership fee.

Sure. But not only.

Ever noticed that folk who trot out the enlightened self-interest argument tend not to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, firemen...

Why, one wonders.

No thanks. I seek no membership in a social system that runs on exploitation. If you want to be altruistic you ought to stop delegating someone else to do it for you.

You are the exception, of course, and I hope you enjoy living in a hut in the hills.

The rest of us are able to work together for common goals, and take pleasure in other folk meeting their potential. We understand that justice requires some redistribution. Taxation is far from perfect, but will suffice.

Maybe I’m old fashioned, but working together for common goals seems to me to involve a little more work and community than letting an institution skim from your income. In this arrangement the only folk meeting their potential is the state, and I fear it is at the expense of everyone else’s potential. Nor is there any justice in expropriating someone’s wealth and giving it to others. So the hut on the hill is yours.

Oh for fuck's sake. No, Australia could do better, too.... and although Australia beats the US hands down the bloody Kiwis are ahead of us. It's embarrassing. — Banno

So enlightened self-interest is not a myth. Please try to work on your clarity.

....taking money from someone is an act of theft — NOS4A2

Is it robbery to rob the robbing robber? Can human time qua toil be stolen?

I seek no membership in a social system that runs on exploitation. — NOS4A2

You are one of us and you are one of them, sought or unsought. That you call an us a them - this is the skeleton key to your sort of sentience.

Is there an us at all? Or is it all a them?

It's as if you would prefer no social system at all but your rank rank [sic] avidity on the forum quashes that line of argumentation.

It's plain you're in dire need of a social system.

So enlightened self-interest is not a myth. — tim wood

How did you drag that out of my post?

Again, your wealth is only yours within the state.

Tell us, what is your view on climate change?

For the enlightened adult, altruism and self-interest merge, and often in concrete ways — tim wood

:clap:

A well-considered gem of wisdom!

Why should I pay for him (or her) — tim wood

Simple reason: You're gonna havta pay for him/her, willingly (taxes) or unwillingly (robbery). Why not just voluntarily pay him/her? You get brownie points for that! It makes perfect sense.

Ever noticed that folk who trot out the enlightened self-interest argument tend not to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, firemen... — Banno

"Enlightened self-interest" hasn't bulked large in my life as I've lived it, and it isn't something I usually argue for. Individuals, families, communities, and societies work well to the extent that self-interest--blind or enlightened--isn't the primary modus operandi.

On the other hand, individuals do have real self-interests--even nurses, teachers, paramedics, firemen... Within limits there is nothing faulty about self-interests. Voting or acting against your own self-interest may be collectively harmful. Working class people without a pot to piss in are often swayed by propaganda to vote like Republican bankers. They rant and vote against unions, social welfare programs, more lenient prison sentences for minor property crimes, etc. etc. etc. They are, literally, voting against their self-interest and against everyone else's (except the Republican banker's).