7 ms·

If "assigning resources to everyone" is a net gain (IE the voter doesn't have resources), then yes it is self serving.

jst1fthsdys 8d ago
Pretty much everything is self serving using that definition. Clean up trash in a park? Self serving. Donate money to the poor? Self serving.
- bigfishrunning 8d ago
  I think you misunderstand me -- perspective matters. If you have 12 cookies, and I have 2 cookies, and i say "it would be more fair if we each had 7 cookies", then i pretty transparently just want you to give me 5 cookies. "Clean up trash" and "Donate money to the poor" are not as unevenly beneficial. Also "Donate money to the poor" is a far cry from "Seize money and give that to the poor".
  - 1659447091 8d ago
    > and i say "it would be more fair if we each had 7 cookies", then i pretty transparently just want you to give me 5 cookies. But under the context of "government has no concept of property and assigns resources to everyone" it is not you (or any single person) that decides that, it's the contextual Communist government saying and doing that. Just because it benefits random governed person does not make it directly self serving. The nuance is, in this version of Communism, the Communism itself it is not self serving it trys to equalize -- Libertarianism, in this context, enforces self serving ideals
    - bigfishrunning 7d ago
      > But under the context of "government has no concept of property and assigns resources to everyone" it is not you (or any single person) that decides that, Under every version of Communism, it's "the government" that decides that, and those government officials seem to be much better dressed then everyone else.
Timon3 7d ago
What if the voter has lots of resources, but soon they'll likely lose them due to external factors, so they vote for communism? What if the voter has very few resources, but soon they'll likely gain lots of resources, and still vote for communism? What if the voter prefers a social safety net to having lots of resources, because they're really afraid of ending up broke?
- roarcher 7d ago
  What if my grandmother was a bicycle? None of these change the fact that voting for a system to move resources from others to yourself is self serving. You can debate whether it's justifiable or not, but it is self serving by definition.
  - Timon3 7d ago
    Oh, I fully agree! Unfortunately many people reduce other people's inner thoughts to the boolean decision "if someone has below-average resources, their decision must be motivated by moving resources from others to themselves", because they assume the "homo economicus" model to apply to most individuals. As my examples show, such a model breaks down for trivial cases. In the real world, people have much more complicated and layered reasons motivating their vote for any system. Though I'd like to ask anyone subscribing to the homo economicus view - what do you think about the position of people with above-average wealth who would vote for capitalism? Their choice is equally as self-serving, no? --- Btw, it's a bit rude to pattern-match a thought-terminating cliche followed by declaring your point of view to be objectively true.
    - roarcher 7d ago
      You seem to be missing the point. The person you originally replied to said that those who vote for communism for their own personal gain are self serving. Let's call those people Group A. You then listed a bunch of people who might vote for it for some non-self-serving reason, let's call them Group B. Your comment implies that the existence of Group B makes Group A not-self-serving, when in fact it is as irrelevant to Group A's motives as my grandmother being a bicycle. > Btw, it's a bit rude to pattern-match a thought-terminating cliche followed by declaring your point of view to be objectively true. I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Pretty much everything is self serving using that definition. Clean up trash in a park? Self serving. Donate money to the poor? Self serving.

bigfishrunning 8d ago
I think you misunderstand me -- perspective matters. If you have 12 cookies, and I have 2 cookies, and i say "it would be more fair if we each had 7 cookies", then i pretty transparently just want you to give me 5 cookies. "Clean up trash" and "Donate money to the poor" are not as unevenly beneficial. Also "Donate money to the poor" is a far cry from "Seize money and give that to the poor".
- 1659447091 8d ago
  > and i say "it would be more fair if we each had 7 cookies", then i pretty transparently just want you to give me 5 cookies. But under the context of "government has no concept of property and assigns resources to everyone" it is not you (or any single person) that decides that, it's the contextual Communist government saying and doing that. Just because it benefits random governed person does not make it directly self serving. The nuance is, in this version of Communism, the Communism itself it is not self serving it trys to equalize -- Libertarianism, in this context, enforces self serving ideals
  - bigfishrunning 7d ago
    > But under the context of "government has no concept of property and assigns resources to everyone" it is not you (or any single person) that decides that, Under every version of Communism, it's "the government" that decides that, and those government officials seem to be much better dressed then everyone else.

Timon3 7d ago

What if the voter has lots of resources, but soon they'll likely lose them due to external factors, so they vote for communism? What if the voter has very few resources, but soon they'll likely gain lots of resources, and still vote for communism? What if the voter prefers a social safety net to having lots of resources, because they're really afraid of ending up broke?

roarcher 7d ago
What if my grandmother was a bicycle? None of these change the fact that voting for a system to move resources from others to yourself is self serving. You can debate whether it's justifiable or not, but it is self serving by definition.
- Timon3 7d ago
  Oh, I fully agree! Unfortunately many people reduce other people's inner thoughts to the boolean decision "if someone has below-average resources, their decision must be motivated by moving resources from others to themselves", because they assume the "homo economicus" model to apply to most individuals. As my examples show, such a model breaks down for trivial cases. In the real world, people have much more complicated and layered reasons motivating their vote for any system. Though I'd like to ask anyone subscribing to the homo economicus view - what do you think about the position of people with above-average wealth who would vote for capitalism? Their choice is equally as self-serving, no? --- Btw, it's a bit rude to pattern-match a thought-terminating cliche followed by declaring your point of view to be objectively true.
  - roarcher 7d ago
    You seem to be missing the point. The person you originally replied to said that those who vote for communism for their own personal gain are self serving. Let's call those people Group A. You then listed a bunch of people who might vote for it for some non-self-serving reason, let's call them Group B. Your comment implies that the existence of Group B makes Group A not-self-serving, when in fact it is as irrelevant to Group A's motives as my grandmother being a bicycle. > Btw, it's a bit rude to pattern-match a thought-terminating cliche followed by declaring your point of view to be objectively true. I don't even know what you're trying to say here.