Well since you yourself are one of these "people," do you consider yourself helpless? OK then, neither to they. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm dealing with facts, on which we presumably agree: one group of people do not have access to the same resources and do not get the same opportunities as another group of people. You, for example, will never be a general or a CEO. Never.

I would never want to be a general, — BitconnectCarlos

No. It's not a matter of wanting. It will never happen, period. Ever. End of story. Whether you want it or not. I may have wanted to play in the NBA, but I wasn't tall enough. People seem fine with things like that, but when it comes to the American Dream of "if you just work hard enough, sky's the limit," we all have to become delusional.

Yes, some people get out of poverty. Some people win the lottery. That's not the point.

They have zero privacy. They need a caravan of security and other high ranking officers around them at all times. God, what a terrible life. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, and those grapes they eat are probably sour anyway.

You're also probably right that I'll never be a CEO of some big company, — BitconnectCarlos

"Probably right." I love this. I guess you're a true believer in the American dream. Fine. Don't let me disillusion you if it makes you happy. But in my view, it's a complete delusion. And when used to justify the condemnation of others for their poverty, it's harmful.

I'm also a bit of a mover and a shaker, by the way. My salary is not my only form of income. I'm a semi-professional poker player (live near a casino), pretty decent investor/trader, and churning credit cards has netted me a few extra grand here and there. But I suppose none of this stability "really" matters because I'll never be a fortune 500 CEO or a billionaire. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, I guess the guy struggling to feed his kids by working three jobs also doesn't "really" matter because he hasn't yet bought a house, joined the military, etc., like some others who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps with good ol'-fashioned hard work.

It's funny you get defensive and start justifying yourself with a list of your perceived accomplishments. That was precisely the reason for saying what I did. I don't consider you a loser because you're not a CEO, nor do I think it's because you haven't worked hard enough, nor do I think it's because you couldn't do the job or don't have the intelligence or work ethic, etc. You see the relevance?

I honestly don't even care what people do or how much they earn, but if someone is going to do nothing to even attempt to get their situation in order and then blame the system on it I'm so done with them. — BitconnectCarlos

Here is the relevant part of your response. It's exactly this sentiment that's wrong. It's in the same group as the old "Welfare Queen" belief, which still persists. Why? Because this is very rare. You can always find outliers to justify your general attitude, but it ignores the wider and much more important data.

But yes, I'm done with those people too. I'm not arguing in favor of gaming the system or capable (but lazy) people wanting a free ride. I'm sure that happens. But again, look at the numbers. And even if the numbers aren't all that clear, it's hard to argue that it's a common occurrence. If that's all you see, it's because that's all you want to see. And it's that fact that I'm talking about -- the attitude or belief held prior to approaching a subject. How did it develop, etc. It's what I was talking about before with irrationality.

If someone is able to foresee a problem 40-50 years away and proceeds to ignore it and then finds themselves in dire straits, well, maybe look to yourself first before blaming the entire system. — BitconnectCarlos

"If."

That's because you give us softballs. Some bright children could notice and correct where you've gone wrong, hence why you get so many mentions and responses -- because it's open to so many.

Incidentally, that should tell you something about your beliefs. Are you open to changing some of them, or do you hold them as objective absolutes?

Exactly right.

You know there are plenty of examples of people who simply don't get the opportunities or resources that other people do.

People are just a helpless bunch, aren't they? — BitconnectCarlos

Well since you yourself are one of these "people," do you consider yourself helpless? OK then, neither to they. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm dealing with facts, on which we presumably agree: one group of people do not have access to the same resources and do not get the same opportunities as another group of people. You, for example, will never be a general or a CEO. Never.

There are all kinds of gradations, but it's true. When discussing the wealthiest people -- the people with real power in this country -- this "group" now includes nearly everyone, including you. So while you may feel very proud with your position, remember that you are still one of the 80% - sorry to break it to you. Thus to pick on the percentile below you is like a guy living off of $900 disability checks lecturing a homeless guy about his lack of work ethic.

The idea that you can "move upwards" is an illusion.

Then why do I - someone who is enlisted military - work around plenty of people who were born into poverty and are now middle class and able to afford homes? Some service members own several homes. This is just not true. — BitconnectCarlos

Going from working class to middle class may be considered "upward mobility," I suppose. But, like I said, that's really an illusion. You have as much power in this country as myself or a janitor.

In fact it's interesting you mention the military -- it's a fairly good deal for a lot of poor kids who can't afford or don't want to go the college route and who can't find a decent job. I know plenty of people who did just that. I'm sure you feel proud about it, to the point where you can now look down on the people making less money than you or not taken care of by the government as you are, as simply weak and lazy and stupid. It's a very self-serving position: I got to where I am because of hard work and merit, and anyone else can as well if they weren't so lazy and didn't choose to be coddled. It's an old conservative/capitalist mantra. I'd recommend seriously questioning that assessment of things.

I also, like you, know many people who have worked their way up from poverty to own a home and get a good-paying job, etc. But all of us are in the same class. In fact, we do not know anyone who isn't. They exist, but they aren't us. It's kind of funny, in fact, that you think you've moved from one class to the other, and the this entitles you to give lectures about poor and working class ambition.

...I don't want to call you crazy, because I feel more sympathy than anything else toward you, but yeah that seems crazy to me. — Pfhorrest

You shouldn't feel pity for me, I'm quite happy with my choices. They're deliberate.

What strikes me as sad, however, is this:

I am sacrificing and postponing major things to safeguard my future, yes. Mostly, I'm living in a much smaller space than many people would accept, and consequently can't live with the woman who would be my wife if only we could live together. — Pfhorrest

If by "major things" you mean things that are very important to you, but you choose to sacrifice for something less important, than that's crazy. But I assume this isn't the case, and that you have rationally concluded that saving money is of greater importance than getting married and living with your girlfriend. In which case I just don't agree. I've come to the opposite conclusion. While you're young enough, healthy enough, strong enough, resourceful enough, etc., to live your life, you should. It doesn't mean being reckless -- I believe in living within your means and not creating problems for yourself. But to postpone things like relationships and projects simply to make your life a little easier when you're older is crazy. Why is living a long time of greater value than living for fully for a short time?And this is not to say one shouldn't' plan ahead and all that, but not at the price of the important things in your youth. Life then becomes work and sacrifice and grind during your 20s and 30s and 40s, when you're at peak creative and physical strength, and a life full of ease and regret later on.

Worth considering. I wouldn't tell anyone how to live, but the logic behind these choices -- and the general sentiment behind them -- is not something I understand or agree with.

I used to be of the mindset that I was fine not worrying about money, going broke was no big deal, etc, back when all going broke meant was not eating for a while, because I had a free roof over my head (the roof my the tool shed next to my dad's trailer, but still). Ever since that got taken away, my top priority became to get back to a place where I could stop worrying about money like that again, where going broke wouldn't mean I would lose absolutely everything, because if I didn't constantly pay someone else for a right to exist somewhere, I would lose any right to exist anywhere. That seems like it should be the most basic of things a human being is entitled to, but apparently we're expected to fight our entire lives just to try to attain it and even then it may all be for nothing. — Pfhorrest

I didn't read this before responding above, but I'll let it stay as I wrote it.

Your choices make much more sense now. Were you poor growing up? I always considered my family as poor, or at least working class, but maybe we would have been considered middle class. In any case, it really does change one's entire perception of life and work. I can't fully empathize with your rationale, perhaps, as I didn't experience the same level of insecurity.

No, they don't. Not if you make an attempt at understanding Bernie, of course. If you're not willing to understand his position, fine. In that case, refrain from "translating" until you do or simply don't talk about it.
— Xtrix

I've noted several times that I perused his latest plan on his website and consulted several sources who analyzed the probable costs, the spending ramifications, and the dubiosity of his revenue projections. — fishfry

Great, then let's have a discussion about those plans and numbers. I'd be happy to. Simply waving your hand and dismissing it all as USSR-style "socialism," however, is a bore to me. It's something your average YouTube commenter would say. Be better than that.

I've made these points several times. If you want to claim, after the posts I've written recently, that I make no attempt to understand Bernie, I'm not interested in further conversation. — fishfry

Fine with me.

She's a Dem by the way so I'm just stooping to the latest socially acceptable parlance used by your side. — fishfry

And this is exactly why you're a waste of time. I'm not a Democrat and never once claimed to be. Never. Not once. Exactly like Bernie never claimed he admired or wanted to implement Soviet policies, which you've also stated and, when pointed out by me, ignored. If you stopped your own childish projections and stopped trying to force-fit everything you read into your silly boxes, you'll learn something new. I, for example, am not a Democrat nor a socialist. Yet I argue for Bernie Sanders' policies and have voted Democratic for years. If you struggle with these facts, that's your problem.

I guess it's all a matter of you being too "clear and consistent" for me.

Bottom line is I've made substantive posts repeatedly recently on this subject and all you've got is a totally unfounded and untrue personal attack. Have a nice day. — fishfry

Ok, bye....

Oh wait, he's back:

Oh and also when it comes to Bernie, I'm not your enemy. I like him a lot better than I like Biden. Your beef is with the DNC and the media, with Obama working in the background, who just knifed Bernie in the back. You did notice that I hope. Liz stayed in long enough to hurt Bernie on Super Tuesday then dropped out without endorsing anyone. — fishfry

I never once said you're my "enemy." Not once, not ever. I'm sure you're a good person. I wish you no harm. I am frustrated and repulsed by your argumentation. Again, if it's a struggle to square these two things, then I can't help that. I make the assumption that people who show up on a philosophy forum are fairly resilient, educated adults.

If I were to stipulate that Bernie doesn't want the US to be the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and Mao's China rolled up in one; wouldn't you at least agree that this is a credible charge that he will be accused of anyway? His record on this is terrible. He's made many public statements and has many political alliances that argue my side of the proposition and not yours. — fishfry

No, they don't. Not if you make an attempt at understanding Bernie, of course. If you're not willing to understand his position, fine. In that case, refrain from "translating" until you do or simply don't talk about it.

Bernie has never -- not once, not ever -- claimed he wants the US to be like China or Cuba or the USSR or wants to turn them into that. You won't find one statement of his that suggests this. Not one -- in 50 years. That's such a preposterous claim, and it's shocking you don't recognize it. Yet you want me to take you seriously regarding your analysis?

I skipped the rest of your post after this. Not interesting until you show you've at least understood Bernie's brand of Democratic Socialism. It's not hard to do, he's had a decades-long record which, approached without your inherited, preconceived notions, is easy to comprehend.

I have little sympathy for people who can see a problem coming, oh, 40-50 years in the future and not do anything about it. If you don't take care of your life that's not my problem. Get a side hustle. Get a better job. Train as a welder or an electrician. Move to a cheaper area. It's not someone's fault for being into poverty, but it is their fault if they die poor. Plenty of people don't care to try to advance. Not my problem. — BitconnectCarlos

This is terrible philosophy, and very damaging. Think through what you're saying. You know there are plenty of examples of people who simply don't get the opportunities or resources that other people do. There's a reason rich people serve less time in jail than poor people (white or black), get into the "best" schools, get higher paying jobs, etc. To argue this is all merit-based, simply a matter of proper work ethic or motivation, is simply not true.

Class matters. More so than race, even. Throughout history, those who are in a more powerful class --whether in the aristocratic or noble or monarchic or cleric or warrior or Brahmin class -- simply live in a different world than those of a less powerful class. The idea that you can "move upwards" is an illusion. It's like arguing the exception proves the rule.

In the past seven years since I last went flat broke, I have saved up about two years worth of my current living expenses. At that rate, if nothing catastrophic ruins my life again, and I keep living how I live now in this tiny trailer, by myself, never getting married, then I could retire at 65 with about ten years expenses saved up. But I hope to live past 75, so... — Pfhorrest

I just caught this. Let me add my $0.02.

All that planning is fine and good, provided that your saving for old age isn't at the expense of your present happiness. I suspect that that may be the case, but correct me if I'm misreading you.

If you're sacrificing or postponing some high value of yours simply because you're scared to be broke or homeless, I think a better balance is needed.

However, if you manage to do everything else you want to do, while also saving a bit of money, then I'm envious indeed! I have no savings for the future, no 401K, nothing. I don't have health insurance, and for years I had no car insurance (my car was fully paid, now I finance so I am required to have it). Maybe this is all very "risky," I don't know. I guess I figure there's social security and medicare, or else family and friends, and I'm confident in my resourcefulness. I don't require much materialistically in order to live well. That may change when I'm an older or elderly man, I don't know. Plenty of government help you can get, and if you live within your means that's generally good enough. If not, and I end up going bankrupt or accumulating a lot of debt that I'll never pay off, so be it. What do you make of this? Does this seem crazy to you?

Some people just love things that I don't. I recently talked to a guy that loved drag racing. Is that irrational given the risk? You tell me (I personally think it's insane but I don't know the kind of pleasure he gets from it.) Personally, I love poker and I've been playing for a while which also entails a degree of risk. Am I irrational? — BitconnectCarlos

Depends on your hierarchy of values; your priorities. If poker is a top value of yours, then giving it the according amount of care, time, energy, and attention is perfectly rational. I think ultimately we all want to be "happy" (a pop-culture type word, but good enough for now), so hopefully poker plays some kind of role in your life towards that ultimate end, or maybe you consider it an end in itself. Either way, nothing irrational about that. (Incidentally, I played poker professionally for 1 year, 6 months at home and 6 months actually living in the casino [given where I lived, there was no way to make a living or progress in bankroll without putting in more hours, and that required moving there]. I think there's actually many parallels between poker and life.)

I had a friend who grew up poor his entire life and had finally attained some degree of financial stability blow his savings on an expensive car. Am I - who grew up in a very different environment - going to label his action "irrational?" Yes, financially, I think we would both agree that the action was irrational but from his perspective owning a nice car finally means one "made it" or had attained a certain status - something that I wouldn't be conscious of owing to my class upbringing. — BitconnectCarlos

You answered your own question: yes, it is. Unless, of course, he believes it's the right choice to own a car for status but have no money for anything else. You've also identified why he's acting irrationally: he's acting out of an emotional need for status because of deprivation of youth. This happens often in psychology -- a person growing up "food insecure" will often, as adults, gorge themselves when food is available, long after the insecurity is there. There's all kinds of things like that, and it's studied in psychology. But whether or not it's rational is fairly easy to see, given my (and others') definition of rationality.

If you have a more full proof, all-encompassing method of determining which goals are rational then let me know. — BitconnectCarlos

Ratonality, in terms of the state of a human being I like calling the "theoretical," and when discussing action it's based on goals. Goals are based on values and beliefs, which is a matter of ethics and morals. Here we get into the related issue of "will," "desire," "care," and general motivation. It's also leads to the question of "What is good?" or "What is the good life"?

All very interesting. So it's a good question, and we could pursue that if you like. I still feel, though, that it's a diversion, but if you feel it'd be illuminating in some way I'm happy to talk about it. Full disclosure: I'm influenced heavily by the thinking of Nietzsche in this case.

If, however, for the sake of political discussion, we simply assume the standard thing that most people in this country would say, something like "I want to be happy" when pressed about what their greatest good and ultimate end is, then we can talk about whether an act is rational or moral in this context (political action).

a) We're hopefully both hoping to discuss the issue and flush out the other person's ideas as opposed to challenging them on every aspect and just hoping to beat them (i.e. we are engaging in good faith.) Another reason we're able to have the conversation is that we both share common assumptions. — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly. I think in this case, both are true. I assert it for myself and bring myself to take as a given that you do as well, until proven otherwise.

I believe that we're molded by our own unique psychological characteristics to a considerable extent, and for that reason I am extremely wary about me - with my own weird psychological quirks and weird experiences - laying down that phrase "irrational" on others when rationality, by its very nature, is universal. It would basically be me claiming that I can stand outside my own body and experiences so it's a very strong claim. — BitconnectCarlos

Not necessarily "outside," no. Rather to observe phenomenologically -- objectively, is possible but rare indeed. So you're right, it is universally available to human beings. The fact that most of us don't use this "mode of our being" (rationality) all that often in our lives isn't even a "bad" thing, either. By extension, irrationality is really free from moral judgment also; it's simply a fact -- after all, it's where most of us dwell most of the time, for "better" for "worse" (value judgments based only in terms of our stated goals).

If I ever come down hard on irrational behavior, it's probably because I'm doing so in the context of political action (or inaction) where it's very important to make the correct choices given a goal or goals, which are in turn are born out of a certain system of beliefs and values. Especially true at this point in human history.

In a way, it is this "system of beliefs and values" -- call it a philosophy, theory, framework, worldview, analysis, interpretation, etc. -- I assume we all hold.

I do this for two reasons: 1) I assume my fellow interlocutors are themselves rational and 2) because we all profess the same values, at heart.

Even if someone is conversing with me that holds an apparently antagonistic worldview, it's been my experience that there are commonalities even here, which usually reside somewhere in the person's semantic system -- in other words, using different words to express the same truth. -- all other differences aside, there's almost always this commonality, down to even "pathological" levels. No man is truly without a philosophy or religion.

To name "two" examples: ideas about being and human being (or human "nature"). Concepts like God, Allah, Brahman, spirit, soul, Ahura Mazda, or whatever, have all described "being" in a sense, interpreting it and our place "in" it or "of" it. In my view, it's all various interpretations, conceptualizations, and semantics. The words, meanings, definitions, descriptions, etc., certainly do matter and are all very interesting in their differences, but all roughly getting at the same truth. (I do not believe this makes everything equally supported, useful, "correct," "right," or "good," necessarily -- those are value judgments based on our own perspective.)

That's a lot of words, but it feel getting to the bedrock frees us up for more pragmatic considerations, like "What do we do about it?"

Given my above statement, I return to the initial question:

Why do conservatives vote against their own (economic) interests? I add "economic" so we don't get caught up in social issues, which I realize is often used as justification for voting Republican but which is precisely why I believe they're being irrational, as I maintain that it is precisely these social issues that have been manufactured through years of manipulation and propaganda. While there had to be some sentiment already there, the media has been used in the service of drawing out and intensifying these sentiments.

Look at the current Republican coalition. Their demographics are: older people, Whites, males, evangelicals, gun rights advocates, pro-life advocates, etc. Breaking each demographic down, one could trace much of this to values and morals based on religious beliefs, specifically a Protestant Christian philosophy of which the US is unique. Our Puritanical heritage remains today. But it's also -- and there's much overlap -- racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and, increasingly, anti-intellectualism. Above all else, a great deal of the voting, I suspect, and certainly behavior, is a result of absolute hatred for liberals. Liberals are now seen as the enemy: anti-American, anti-Christian. Homosexual atheists who want to open the country to everyone else and create a communistic dystopia.

The Republican establishment has, over the last 40 years or so (maybe more if you count the roots of this in Barry Goldwater), have adapted their agenda to bring in these groups. Reagan and Bush were pro-choice, remember.

Through their media -- talk radio and Fox News -- they've shaped the minds of millions of Americans to the point we see today. It's extremely dangerous.

Frankly, I don't see any easy way to resolve this. I mean don't get me wrong there there are insane religious extremists who would really highly value, say, sanctity and in group loyalty but I have no idea how I would go about convincing them that it's "rational" to adopt a more balanced view when their beliefs are tied up in their scriptures and weird psychological quirks. I just don't know. — BitconnectCarlos

You've touched, I think, on the heart of the issue. But again, I don't accept the idea that because neither you nor I have a foolproof way of convincing people to change their minds or that they're being irrational, that this somehow makes us wrong in our assessment that they are being irrational (in the sense I meant above).

I don't think that truth, moral or otherwise, is always equal. I do believe there are many truths, just as there are many philosophies, religions, and scientific theories throughout history. There's perspective and interpretation, etc. But it is possible to judge these things concretely. They stick around for long enough and exert the influence they do in the world to this very day (Aristotle, Jesus, Newton, etc) because there's something fundamentally right about all of them. Other perspectives and variations, less so or completely bogus. The question in the latter case becomes, Why do people believe weird things?

That, ultimately, is what I was getting at. You and I, and hopefully others, who show up for this conversation, on this forum, with the assumption that many people are acting irrationally, against their interests, can then have a more fruitful conversation -- cooperatively trying to figure out that question. If we get too stuck on words, the project can't get off the ground. I don't think it's wrong to engage in the philosophy, of course, especially given this is a philosophy forum, but given we're in a political thread it has the potential to slow things down to a crawl.

Not exactly. Either choice is, was, and will always be a rational one, if and only if, it followed from what they already believed to be the case. When someone makes a choice that makes perfect sense in light of many or most of their pre-existing beliefs, then they are involved in rational thinking. That's just how it works. — creativesoul

Not to me. Just because a decision is internally consistent with one's belief system does not make the decision, nor the belief system itself, rational.

If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Hillary Clinton was better than having someone like Trump in office, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Trump. — creativesoul

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you. Like I said above, it's really not a matter of consistency.

A child believes he can fly and jumps out a window. The action was consistent with his worldview and his beliefs and, thus, rational. According to you.

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.
— creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case?
— Xtrix

No, the rational choice is not merely whatever the person believes to be the case. The rational choice is whatever choice follows from those beliefs. — creativesoul

A choice that follows from "those beliefs" is a rational choice. Any beliefs?

It's not about making decisions based upon true belief. — creativesoul

I think this does have something to do with rationality, yes, although I'm not sure about "true belief." If decisions are made in pursuit of some goal because you have determined, based on available evidence and information, that this is the best way of achieving your goal, then that's rational -- in my view.

It could turn out that you've made a blunder, that your premises were false, that you overlooked something, etc. -- in which case the question becomes whether that was avoidable or not, about effort, about intention, etc. Or that there simply wasn't enough information. I would still count the choice as a rational one, because at the time it was.

If a decision was determined to be the best -- or even "believed" to be the correct one given your goal -- but was based simply on things like intuition, gut feeling, emotion, whim, habit, reaction, reflex, etc. -- it's irrational. That's not using reason to make decisions, it's using other factors. I assume you agree with this?


_________
As a digression, I want to be clear about one thing: I'm not some kind of Ayn Rand-esque "rationalist." I think we use what's called reason and logic very rarely, in fact. And that this is generally a good thing.

We're usually doing things in the world, and if you look at what we do (including thinking), much of it is "default." Stop and take a look some time (it's getting less likely to observe these days, as we're overstimulated 24/7). This is the realm of automaticity, habit, custom, etc., in which we all seem to live most of the time.

The point, to me, is to get that "irrational" and habitual aspect in line with, or used in the service of, one's goals and ultimate plans for one's life, decided rationally. Human action can be cultivated and shaped, as is well known, and we see the results in the great masters of various skills and domains. None of this implies we walk around in a theoretical or "rational" state or anything like that. We're only philosophers and scientists some of the time.

But I do indeed digress.

What if the conservative's goal is "preserve traditional marriage" or "have more money in my pocket by paying less taxes." How are their decisions irrational? — BitconnectCarlos

What decisions?

It's useless to talk about things like this in too general terms. I'm not advocating for an algorithm or a rule that will work in any given situation, which is why I try using specific examples. So regarding what I was saying earlier, if "preserve traditional marriage" is a goal of theirs, fine. We can argue about why they have this goal, as I want to do and in which there's interesting research about, but what's more important is:

1) The manufactured irrationality of their hierarchy. Meaning sacrificing all other values, which are in themselves (or collectively) of greater importance and greater benefit, for one value -- like transgender bathroom rights or traditional marriage or anything like that -- because you "feel" like it, is not only a mistake but an irrational choice. (To argue the 9/11 hijackers were acting irrationally, despite them clearly placing ultimate importance on and acting on one particular goal, isn't improper.)

2) The fact that even their choices made for their stated goals often have the opposite effect. By this I mean: polling will indicate that healthcare is a top concern, that people are aware that medicare expansion would directly improve their healthcare, yet they vote for a candidate who does not want to expand medicare because he promises less gun restriction, strict immigration laws, and perserving traditional marriage. That's still irrational. Most of the time, however, it's simply because someone has an "R" or a "D" next to their names.

To discuss Democrats -- they act irrationally too, when they're given a choice of two candidates and opt for one of them based solely on "electability."

Irrationality abounds.

Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton.
— Xtrix

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case. — creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case? I don't really follow you here. Are you arguing, therefore, that either choice was rational if the person making the choice believed it to be?

I agree.

I'm beginning to get the impression that the claim "people vote against their own interests" is always levied against people who vote differently than the claimant. He voted differently than me, therefor he voted against his own interests. I could easily claim the same of you, for example. So I think it's more of a condescending accusation rather than useful comment. — NOS4A2

It's not intended to be condescending. I'm exploring the factors that account for irrational choices. They're made all the time. Conservative minded people do not have a monopoly on it, nor did I claim that. And it's not simply "you don't agree with me, therefore you're irrational."

People make irrational choices all the time, for many reasons. If you decide on a goal and to your best ability, given the available evidence, make a choice which you've concluded is in service of that goal, then you're being rational. There's always a chance you're wrong, of course. Mistakes happen, etc.

That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious. — NOS4A2

You know what best to do with it, that's fine. Then are you against taxes altogether? Why not keep all of it, ideally, since you know how best to use it?

If that's not the case, and you simply prefer paying less, then why? Is it too much of a burden, or do you not agree with where the money goes?

What if by lowering state taxes, there's less revenue and cuts need to be made to social services, education, infrastructure, etc. Are those things not a priority for you? Should it all be privatized, in that case?

What if it's proven to you that raising taxes would have improved your life dramatically, and by voting for lower taxes you ended up screwing yourself over. Were you simply wrong, or were you irrational?

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your conclusion it is irrational to believe lower taxes are better. You can disagree with these people, but you cannot claim someone holding that position is irrational. — Benkei

Yes, you can.

When you say "believe lower taxes are better," you're being imprecise. "Better" is meaningless without a context. Better for whom and for what?

If all the evidence shows that lowing taxes will help you and your community, and you give this proper priority, then to vote against lowering taxes is irrational. Why you made this irrational choice is interesting and what we're trying to figure out. It does not make you stupid, but it does mean you made a choice against your stated interests and hence an irrational one. That usually means: a choice based on emotion, whim, feelings, or ignorance. By "ignorance" in this case I mean simply being uninformed. That's often not the "fault"of the person making the choice. People vote for religious reasons based on the Bible, they vote one way because their family does so or their friends are doing it, or because they have been indoctrinated in some fashion.

There are all kinds of reasons and causes that explain why an irrational choice was made. But let's start by agreeing that there is such a thing. By your argument, there isn't.

This means voters do not vote against their interest, but that they prioritise their interests and vote accordingly. What you do is project your own priorities on them and then don't understand their voting behaviour (how can they not see that lower taxes and no universal healthcare is bad for them!). Answer: they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so. — Benkei

If someone voted, hypothetically, for a man who stated he would most likely use nuclear weapons and did so because he was pro-choice, would that be rational? After all, it's that person's priorities. They like chocolate, I like vanilla. It's a wash. Both just as rational.

Nonsense.

If people vote on single issues then a two-party system will inevatibly cause them to vote against some of their interests because two parties can never align their policies in such a way as to cater to a majority of individual interests. Only a multi-party system would be able to do that. — Benkei

By voting for Clinton, there were plenty of interests not included in her proposals. I had to hold my nose. It's quite true that the two-party system is a joke, and I don't think anyone would argue against that.

So don't blame the voters, blame the system. — Benkei

"Blame" is the wrong word to use, so I retract that. But even when using the word, my emphasis has been exactly the opposite: I don't "blame" voters at all. In fact, I'm interested in why they make irrational choices. Do I say "You people are stupid"? No, I don't say that. It is indeed the "system" but also the media. Education plays a role as well, of course.

Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests. — Benkei

They precisely did vote irrationally. They vote against their interests (irrationally) when one person's policies would have had an empirically demonstrable positive effect on your community and the other exactly the opposite, yet you vote for him or her anyway. I'm talking about specific communities, but the argument can be made nationally as well.

If you can't see why, when given a choice -- even if it's a choice between two things you don't like -- you choose not the least damaging to yourself and your country, but for the more damaging candidate, I don't know what to say exactly. Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton. This is apart from party loyalty. Any rational observer, if they are rational, would have chosen Clinton as she was the least damaging. This shouldn't even be controversial. To paint the picture that people just have different priorities and opinions and it's all a wash and all rational is weak indeed. This isn't about party bias. It's a factual claim. If you need to have that discussion I'm happy to, but it should be taken for granted.

The real question is simply why people do that. It's not because they're stupid -- there are other factors involved. Again, see Manufacturing Consent and Strangers in Their Own Land. Very interesting indeed. To argue the electorate, or the "market" for that matter, consists of informed people making rational choices is simply incorrect.

So in the end your saying voters are voters are voting against their interests and say about the reasons that "most of it is complete nonsense". Couldn't be more condescending, because I assume you don't think that you yourself are voting like this. — ssu

Most of the social issues are fabricated nonsense, yes. I don't blame the people necessarily, I place a greater amount of blame, as I stated, on the media, which have conditioned them to care about this nonsense. They do it on the left, too, all the time. This isn't a left/right thing.

That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. — Benkei

That's not true. As I said above, this is coming from the voters themselves. First, most know they have little choice, and are forced into choosing between two people they don't even like and who have very little connection to their lives or needs. Second, if they vote anyway, they vote for irrational reasons -- guns, immigration, abortion, etc. You can claim, of course, that this is in fact rational and simply reflects a different set of priorities as mine, but when you factor in the influence of media and polling trends it's hard to believe. While I'm sure people care about guns and abortion and immigration, the fact that they care at all -- and especially the importance they place on them -- is largely shaped by propaganda. That goes for the "left" as well. There's plenty of documentation about this; shaping public opinion is a big business.

Set some time aside to read the comments on the Trump Facebook page. They believe anything they want to believe. Anything. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Of course. But given that's true, how can we possibly point to Russian misinformation specifically as the cause, or significant factor in, Trump's getting elected? Given other voting patterns, it doesn't seem likely.

Every popular movement will always say they represent the "true people" who have been silenced / forgotten and they themselves know these real people. Where it becomes extremely annoying and quite condescending is when some have the view that some people are "wrong" in their views, so wrong that they "vote against their real interests". Really? they are just so stupid or what? And the person saying this isn't??? — ssu

Not every popular movement says that, and certainly not Bernie's. What's said is that the majority of Americans support various policies -- 90% or so want universal background checks on guns, nearly 70% want either universal healthcare or a public option, etc. To point out that there's many people in this country with a lot of different interests and needs isn't saying anything at all. It's obvious and almost childish to point out.

I'm also not saying people are voting against their "real" interests. You added that. Try listening to other people without projecting -- you learn a lot more.

People do indeed vote against their interests. Not their "real" interests in the sense you mean -- like I know what their "real" interests are and they stupidly vote against them. They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it.

So the question then becomes: why do they care so much about these particular issues that they're willing to vote for someone they dislike and who in many other ways are against their interests?

That's exactly where the media come in. When it's beaten into your head for 30 years that immigrants are destroying the country, that liberals want to secularize everything and take God and prayer out of schools, that the government is trying to disarm us gradually so we can't defend ourselves when they come for us, etc. Then yes, it's easy to see why people vote against their interests.

The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country...
— Xtrix

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership. — creativesoul

That's a good point. Remember too that the biggest voting bloc in the US is "non-voters." I think this is precisely for the reason you mentioned: no real choice. The two party system in this country is odd -- we don't even have a labor party, which is common in the others. It's two factions of the business class, and has been for a long time.

But I was talking mostly about those who DO still care and still vote. In that case, propaganda is very important. But it does indeed apply even to keeping a two-party system in tact. The media paints a picture of "left" and "right," especially on social issues, but never operates on the assumption that this system is strange and never reflects the needs and interests of the majority of Americans.

This is another reason why Bernie is different. Although running in the democratic party, he's sui genesis different than others and is running a campaign unlike any other in 100 years just based on fundraising alone.

I have several Chomsky books. He's prone to take things a bit farther than I.

I think that there's less of a huge goal based conspiracy of uber wealthy people calling all the shots and more small shots being called over a long time period — creativesoul

Maybe, but Chomsky never argues for conspiracies. That's a very common misunderstanding. It's not what I'm saying either.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". — schopenhauer1

I doubt it. It doesn't seem like it has much effect, and if it does it's in ways that really aren't measurable. I never questioned whether Russia interfered, for example, but really never bought the narrative that the interference helped Trump in any way.

A well informed electorate is imperative to any and all free and fair elections, particularly when we're talking about a representative republic with democratic traditions.

Knowingly misleading the public is fraud of the very worst kind, especially if the public trusts that what you say is both believed by you and true.

That's why. — creativesoul

This is excellent. The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country. We don't have a gun pointed at our heads or live under the threat of being imprisoned for what we say. There's almost "too much freedom," so those in power have to care about what people think and believe, and use the media (which they own) as a tool to shape (or 'manufacture') the public's opinions.

Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" argued this years ago, back in 1988. It's just as relevant now, although the difference being the rise of the Internet. Although it can do a lot of good, it's also been hugely destructive in the sense of spreading misinformation and creating information bubbles. It's also very vulnerable to outside forces, as was seen in the '16 election and Russia's attempts at swinging it.

Well ok then. Been to the supermarket lately? Seen the bounteous harvest in the produce department, the shelves full of all kinds of wondrous goods, the meat and fish sections filled with good stuff to eat? Maybe you'd prefer the stores in Venezuela or the Soviet Union or the aforementioned Cuba. — fishfry

No one is advocating anything like the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela. No one. That's imaginary.

But please, tomorrow as you go through your day, look around at the abundance around you. The bustling commerce, the well-stocked store shelves. Ask yourself if you'd rather live here or in Bernie's Cuba.

LOL. I can't believe you actually said that. Are you joking? You have no idea of the actual, literal wealth of the US -- spread throughout society, though certainly terribly unequal -- relative to the rest of the world? — fishfry

Why you keep invoking Cuba or our supermarkets is beyond me. If you can't see that this is sheer stupidity, maybe it's not worth it talking to you. None of this has to do with my comment, that the wealth in the US has been concentrated to the top, especially the 1% (it's actually closer to 1/10 or 1/100 of 1%).

The wealth of the US is vast. We're the wealthiest country on Earth. So "relative to the rest of the world," that's not an "idea", it's a fact. What's your point?

Stop arguing against imaginary opponents. Outside of your information bubble, they don't exist. If all you know how to do is respond to straw men and imaginary opponents, that's OK. Just let me know so I don't waste my time trying to explain anything.

Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him.
— Xtrix

All those people driving to and from work on the freeway, you want to shut down all that commerce. How many would starve under your plan? Are you insane? You seriously want to shut down the US economy? If you did that, ONLY the 1% would survive. They already have their bunkers. The rest of us working stiffs would be crushed in a depression that would make the 1930's look like the good old days. — fishfry

Who said shutting down commerce? Try reading again what I wrote. Bernie wants to destroy a rigged system that distributes the wealth of this country to the top 1/10th of 1%, and I agree with that. I think such a system which produces such enormous inequality should be dismantled or at least heavily corrected. This is the exact opposite of what you're saying -- it's in FAVOR of the working and middle classes. It has nothing to do with "shutting down the American economy." Nothing. Nor did I ever say that. Nor has Bernie said that. It's a ridiculous statement that, once again, exists only in your imagination.

The middle class MUST pay for such enormous spending programs because the rich have lawyers and the poor have no money. This is very basic. — fishfry

It's very easy to tax wealth. All we need is the political will, which Bernie has. The working and middle classes will not pay for it, the wealthiest Americans and the corporate sector, however, will.

This is very basic.

Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc.
— Xtrix

No, I disagree. Trumps policies on trade and immigration go directly against neoliberalism. He hasn't started any new wars and he's trying to get us out of the ones we're in. Of course he's been rolled by the likes of Bolton and other warmongers. It's damned hard to fight the establishment alone. But his big overarching politics are directly opposed to the neoliberal consensus of the past thirty years. — fishfry

That's not true. Neoliberalism has little to do with wars. It has far more to do with increasing the military budget (to line the pockets of defense contractors), which Trump has done. Trump has cut taxes and deregulated everything from environment rules to banking laws. He's in favor of privatizing everything. Almost every policy he's proposed or enacted is exactly in the domain of neoliberal philosophy. It's true Trump doesn't have a clue about what he believes -- he's in it for himself only -- but the policies are clear, and he goes along with it. McConnell has been enacting this agenda while Trump tweets and stirs up controversy. Also, pretty basic. That you deny any of it is "neoliberal' is striking.

So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism.
— Xtrix

Trade, immigration, war. — fishfry

He has done nothing on trade except re-named NAFTA and started a stupid trade war with China which changed literally nothing. His proposal of building a wall will go down as one of the stupidest ideas in history. As for war -- yes, he wants to stay out of war.

What does this have to do with the continued tax cuts, deregulation, and cutting of social welfare programs? These are neoliberal policies, and have been enacted over and over again during this administration. You can bury your head in the sand about it if you'd like, but you make yourself look like a fool.

Anyone who sleepwalks through their American life and doesn't see the incredible material abundance all around them is not one to talk about others being confused. — fishfry

You're confused. Sorry for the accuracy. Try to stop arguing against your imagination.

2020, I don't think that's going to happen. But that's what they said about Trump in 2016 and Bernie's 2020 campaign is weirdly parallel. Not being taken seriously then the whole party panicking to stop him and the moderates unwilling to get out of each other's way. The parallels are eerie. Anything could happen. — fishfry

True. And being accurate about what's really happening in the current administration and about Bernie's actual policies is all the more important. I highly recommend making an effort to do so.

I will check it out, thanks.

It is playing into the hands of those who misunderstand socialism. Accepting their definition and using it against them may score some points, but it does seem like a poor long-term choice.

I do think there is such a thing as too far in each of those ways, though; it's just much much farther than anyone would ever consider, because it's obviously unworkable. — Pfhorrest

Well that depends. Maybe it would work in the future, and so as an ideal is not silly -- but practically speaking, wouldn't fly right now-- given our current political, moral, religious, and philosophical state. (And by "our" I mean the United States, complete with its Puritanical and Protestant influences and strong indoctrination system).

On your figure, for example, the "No property or possessions" and "no self-defense" does indeed seem pretty extreme even to me. But perhaps it's not unworkable in the future. I don't think such a system should be considered the ultimate form of liberty and equality, however. An argument can be made in this case, of course.

Absolute maximal liberty would mean nobody had any claims against anyone... including, say, punching you in the face. Slightly to the right of that would allow for self-enforced claims against some limited things like that. The truly centrist position on that would allow for some kind of institutional enforcement of such reasonable claims, a government, without granting it any monopoly on powers that are denies other people, so no state. More to the right of that would be a state of some kind, but limited in some ways. The farthest to the right would be an unlimited state. — Pfhorrest

Here it's useful to define some terms. What's the difference between "government" and "state"? I see them as essentially the same thing, although reserving "state" (or even government) for the Federal government isn't unreasonable.

I don't mind violence and hierarchy, provided the use of violence can be justified and the structure of authority legitimated.

Bernie is like... 12.5% right of true center, on that scale. But that in turn is about 25% left of center in the limited-state-and-capitalism that has moderate Democrats at its center. And that in turn is like 50% further left of far left on the parochial scale American media pundits seem to think in, by which those moderate Democrats are "far left". — Pfhorrest

Exactly, and I think it's especially important that people like you and I don't get sucked into the belief that Sanders is even all that "left" or all that radical, especially if you're a student of history and knowledgeable of countries outside the US. Rather, it's worth keeping in mind that although it's exciting that Bernie is breaking through and transforming the party and the national dialogue, he's still not all that radical or even all that "socialist" -- so it's good to talk about it in the midst of media bombardment, general naysaying, and general ignorance.

On the first issue of whether Bernie's use of the term socialism is politically expedient, I'm ambivalent about it. Republicans would call him "socialist" anyway, they would call any policies like his "socialist", and because they control the propaganda machine, that's what increasingly many Americans think "socialism" is, and increasingly think is actually a good thing not a bad thing. So it seems like just pragmatic identification with the label people use to mean what he is for, to me. It does come with a bunch of pejorative baggage, but since the label would be applied to him anyway, I don't really see the harm (and maybe even some benefit) in owning the word. Reclaiming it if you will. "We're here, we're 'socialist', get used to it." — Pfhorrest

Sure. A part of me is with you (and Wolff) in de-stigmatizing the word and not being so afraid of giving the "other side" ammunition. On the other hand, I wonder if it truly is "socialism" at all. Bernie doesn't talk about completely eradicating the basis of our state-capitalist system, i.e., private ownership and profit. It's true he rails against neoliberalism and its policies, but if he's truly just a New Dealer like FDR was, then he's advocating a return to policies which only tweaked the system to work a little better for the middle and working classes. It didn't abolish it altogether, as socialist philosophy -- in many variations -- actually argues for, in favor of a community and worker-run economy. I think both the State and Capitalism in many ways remains intact with Bernie.

I personally consider even that further-left viewpoint "centrist", in a good way -- there is still further left than that that one could go, but that would be too far left -- but even from that far-widened-to-the-left Overton window I think in, I kinda dislike this attacking of establishment Democrats and "centrists" from the left. I'm a big-tent kind of guy, — Pfhorrest

I see what you mean. Placing people on a continuum is useful for ease of discussion, but it's hard to pin down exactly what it means.

We're discussing, essentially, political philosophy. When it comes down to it, all of this talk is conducted in the context of a philosophy -- by which I mean a system of beliefs and assumptions about basic issues and fundamental questions. This system of beliefs and values shapes how we interpret and interact with the world. It manifests in our opinions in various domains; in the political domain it's especially on display in a striking way: there is now clear fracturing and transformation going on in both parties which has been driven by the support of millions of people who are no longer constricted by the standard dogma and ideology. They all want something different. They're pushing beyond certain artificial limits. So before we determine what the "middle" or "center" is, we have to have an idea of where the boundaries of left and right are.

What is the "left"-most ideology, in other words? Is it captured by whatever it is that defines "socialism"? What about the tenets of anarchism? Communism? Marxism? It's true that most of these labels are scary ones for many Americans but, as you mentioned, this is mostly an emotional response and not based on any real understanding of the history or philosophy of these political systems of beliefs and ideas. Those demographics are changing, as you know, as more Cold War era people are getting older. (I myself wasn't quite old enough to be fully indoctrinated by Cold War propaganda, but even I am reluctant to use the words or label myself that way.)

It's good that this is all changing, but my point is that with this change should come a paradigm shift in a way, which includes re-calibrating the whole "left-center-right" picture with its implied limits.

These limits have been manufactured in the media for years, so it won't be easy. Bernie has crossed and continues to cross these artificial lines, scaring people on the establishment "right" and perplexing those on the establishment "left" precisely because both are in agreement with this underlying picture of things. So they say: How can a socialist be this popular and doing this well? We said the same thing about Trump, too, only replacing "socialist" with "populist" (if you believe his rhetoric) and, more accurately, "narcissist."

So you can answer that question for yourself, but for me I would like to define the "left" as any ideology with the goal of creating a truly democratic society where the government and business are run by communities and workers. In the socialist-anarchist tradition.

I'd like to see Bernie dig up the old line Reagan used against Carter, about whether you're better off now compared to 4 years ago.

I think for those of us not completely deluded by party identity, we recognize that indeed nothing significant has changed for us, that the rich keep getting richer, and that we're still saddled with a ton of debt because we chose (and were encouraged to choose) an education, or a career in a non-profit industry, or simply have a dwelling and raise a family -- none of which was very difficult in prior generations.

This Sanders campaign really is beginning to feel like an important part of history, as a kind of non-violent revolution (or at least referendum and warning) to the worst aspects of un-checked capitalism -- a reaction against neoliberal political philosophy.

The next step will be running an anarchist, if Bernie doesn't get it. Because this economy isn't working and can't be sustained even if it were. It's going to crash, we're already overdo. Maybe it'll be a big one like 2008. And this will mean, after not electing Bernie, that people won't just want FDR style fixes. They'll want to overthrow the entire system.