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.
You can debate whether it's justifiable or not, but it is self serving by definition.
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.
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.
> If "assigning resources to everyone" is a net gain (IE the voter doesn't have resources), then yes it is self serving.
It is not possible to state more clearly that:
Voter has below-average resources -> voting for communism must be self-serving.
I have explained that this is wrong. To stick with your example, when you choose group A based on factor X and then broadly assign motivation Y to everyone in the group, you're creating a false narrative, because group A is a superset of the people you've described.
I'm getting tired of having to direct the conversation back to the actual topic. It's okay to just bow out when you're wrong, you don't have to continuously derail a conversation with bullshit just because you're out of your depth. You're not fooling anyone with it.
It's fine to disagree with my position! But that's not what you're doing, you're declaring my thoughts meaningless and trying to push me out of the conversation. So why don't you just move on?
I said irrelevant, because your argument does not contradict the point that was being made. Your first comment was a list of scenarios that literally had nothing do with what you were replying to. And your "superset" comment was trying to shoot down a general observation about human behavior by pointing out that it isn't a mathematically rigorous model, as if it was ever intended or claimed to be. It is not my fault that nonsense and pedantry are irrelevant, but I'm sorry to inform you that they are.
> a conversation you admit to not understanding
I understand perfectly what you're saying. The source of my confusion is your insistence that it matters. It's like I told you that apples are edible and you keep insisting that they categorically aren't because some people don't like them, and also occasionally one of them might have a worm in it.
> trying to push me out of the conversation
My brother in Christ, all I want is for you to just stay in the conversation for once.
Anyway, this is pretty firmly in "playing chess with a pigeon" territory now. Have a good one.