Political ethics question

[J_V]

Is it ethical, in a humanitarian sense, to vote in a completely self-serving manner?

EG:
If you are rich, is that enough reason to vote for the most conservative Republican candidate?

If you are on welfare, is that enough reason to vote democratic?

Are you not obliged to subscribe to something a tad more utilitarian?

I await your (straightforward) answers.

[Wake up CALL]

If not self serving why would you even bother to vote? Only liberals act like they care about helping others when all they really want is to control others. Even their facade of non self serving acts are in fact self serving.

Vote early, vote often, vote selflishly! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[superleeds]

You should vote for the person/party whom you feel will improve your overall quality of life. And not just as an immediate fix but as a long term propersition. If you don't, you probably cheat at patience and therefore have no ethics [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't, you probably cheat at patience and therefore have no ethics [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have patience in the US. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are rich, is that enough reason to vote for the most conservative Republican candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without question almost all the time in the U.S. If you as an individual feel the need to help the plight of the disenfranchised do it through a contribution to the appropriate charity or set up your own foundation. Warren Buffet is leaving all his money to charity when he dies and as I've posted before his children lead ordinary for the most part middle class existence. Bill Gates has set up his own foundation and contributed over $17 billion to it. Why not direct the money to the causes that you feel are worthwhile than giving it away in taxes to the government to do whatever they want to do with it?

[ QUOTE ]
If you are on welfare, is that enough reason to vote democratic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really have much choice? If you're faced with the prospect of someone increasing your government handout and you're dependent on that handout and the choice is between someone who wants to increase your handout and someone who wants to maintain it or decrease it who are you going to vote for?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you not obliged to subscribe to something a tad more utilitarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes if there was a clear cut choice between someone wanted to restrict your freedom drastically and someone who only wanted to take money out of your pocket then yes I'd vote for the guy who wanted to take money out of my pocket. Sans that choice I dont' think so. You could say that perhaps foreign policy considerations might apply and national defense considerations might apply but to me they have something to do with your well being.

[J_V]

I like your answer, adios. Somehow, you never let me down.

One question though, if you everyone is voting self-servingly, why do people mask it? Why are people ashamed to say, "I'm voting Republican because I'm loaded"?

Also, you would think issues like stem-cell research or AIDS funding would take a back burner (maybe they do, I hardly follow mainstream politics) to issues more relevant to Americans if everyone voted self-servingly.

Growing up, I always thought people voted to do the greatest good for the greatest many. The older I get, the less I feel that anyone is aiming for any type of fairness or equality. Seems sort've depressing and selfish to vote solely for one's own benefit.

[Glenn]

"Seems sort've depressing and selfish to vote solely for one's own benefit."

WUSS!

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you would think issues like stem-cell research or AIDS funding would take a back burner (maybe they do, I hardly follow mainstream politics) to issues more relevant to Americans if everyone voted self-servingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you're saying and yeah those kind of issues could. For instance if one candidate would support AIDS funding and it would somehow eliminate AIDS from the planet but I would pay more taxes and the other candidate didn't give a rats ass about AIDS but would lower my taxes yeah I'd vote to raise my taxes. Also after I posted I thought of environmental issues as well.

[riverflush]

Commentary: nothumb's got some very coherent and rational thoughts on this subject...


As a capitalist with an uncomprisingly skeptical Kantianism, I vote my own personal self-interest because I believe unfettered freedom (capitalism) is the best order - because it is a natural system of spontaneous order that needs no hand of guidance. Attempts by cultures to "re-order" human behavior in ways that - theoretically - create a more fair society have always failed to create said utopia - at every single point in human history. Our current system is failing (do you realize it?). Need examples? Social Security, Medicare, State-funded education, federally-funded recycling, etc. etc.

Those of us who believe in capitalism as humanitarianism MUST vote in our own rational self-interest, because we have witnessed (and are witnessing) the terrible consequences of socialism, and to a lesser extent, Keynesian economics.

Living in the current U.S. (a great country, mind you), it is difficult for a true capitalist to vote in any election. Our quasi-democracy - a republic - has morphed into a half-free/half-welfare mess where the two major parties have both accepted Keynesian economics of government spending as stimulus. Those of us from the Hayek school are left without a home...merely relegated to tugging and pulling and willing the big government machine in our direction, settling for small wins here and there.

The good news for us is that advancements in technology and communication (internet) are making governments less and less relevant, and in some instances, obsolete.

Why "majority-rules" democracy is a problem:

[ QUOTE ]
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities - and the smallest minority on earth is the individual." -- Ayn Rand

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]

One question though, if you everyone is voting self-servingly, why do people mask it? Why are people ashamed to say, "I'm voting Republican because I'm loaded"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a very common, but false, perception that the rich people are all Republicans.

Indeed, more truly wealthy people are Democrats, and by qutie a large margin.

CEO's and Corporate Executive types of big companies like a very highly regulated economy. Such regulations ensures their continued positions of wealth and influence. Whereas a less regulated economy will tend to provide a breeding ground for smaller companies that are usually more mobile in the market place and therefore a serious threat to larger corporations. Thus they tend to be democrats, as democrats more closely align with their market philosophy.

Almost all of the New England old-money rich are Democrats.

Most lawyers are Democrats. They want a party who is for large bodies of complex laws and against torte reforms.

Many Doctors are Democrats, at least until recently. Medicare and Medicaide were initially great benefits to physicians pocket books, and they tended to support those programs.

Most elderly are Democrats . . . and while many elderly are poor, it's also true that a huge number of the elderly own substantial property and investments, and properly qualify as "the rich."

The members of the "rich" who tend to be Republicans are not the corporate types riding around in Limos and thumbing their noses at the poor. Rather, they tend to be small business entrepeneurs who became rich after significant personal sacrific to do so.

There are of course, exceptions to these generalizations. But by and large, the "rich" Republicans are really the "millionaire next door" typse, who slaved away 16 hour days building their own small business and finally are seeing the fruits of their labors.