3 ms·

> virtue: donating anonymously to your favorite cause > virtue signalling: demanding the government fund your favorite cause I thought that as we built and te

by orwin 5y ago

> virtue: donating anonymously to your favorite cause > virtue signalling: demanding the government fund your favorite cause I thought that as we built and testes political systems, we decided that collegial decisions on fund attribution and nation goal were the best way of doing thing. I actually think lobbying and militant advocacy are the correct way of acting and spending money. If you aren't able to convince people, maybe your idea is not as good as you thought.

LesZedCB 5y ago
except that money isn't distributed democratically....... maybe if the government gave everybody a 'democracy fund' of $1000 to be distributed to whatever registered recipients/distributions. no more, no less spending on lobbying.
WalterBright 5y ago
I fail to see the virtue in forcibly spending someone else's money on your favorite cause, even if it is a good cause. A litmus test as to whether you really believe it is a good cause is if you're willing to spend your own money on it. And not a token amount, either. Real money.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  I could send my whole life savings / net worth off to some organization that is addressing climate change and it won't make a drop in the bucket and nothing will change.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    If all the people that voted for it did, then it would make quite a big difference. After all, where does the government money come from?
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      That is why taxation is coercive to force people to cooperate, and to provide guarantees that other people are cooperating in addition to you and to spread the load out. If you don't do that, the prisoners dilemma is so out of adjustment that everyone would start to defect and it would unwind. That isn't really a moral observation, but its the nature of the game being so out of whack where it is you vs. 330,000,000 other people. Cooperating or not cooperating can have a large effect on your own finances while each single individuals contribution is miniscule (3e-9). But this is already happening and why we need higher taxes on the 1% and .1%.
- brimble 5y ago
  This POV would be fine in a world where coordination problems didn't loom large. Effective collective action requires some "forcibly". Even when everyone agrees on what's good.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    That's why forced collective action does very poorly compared with voluntary cooperation. People don't like being forced. Microsoft, SpaceX, the free market in general, etc., do not rely on forcible cooperation. Yet it's very successful.
    - brimble 5y ago
      > That's why forced collective action does very poorly compared with voluntary cooperation. People don't like being forced. This is about the same as proclaiming a fringe explanation for relativity effects to be definitely true, in a physics thread.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        The USSR was forced cooperation. The US is voluntary. Which economy fared better? It makes me sad to read so many comments from people who are convinced that the only way to get cooperation is through force.
        brimble 5y ago
        > The USSR was forced cooperation. The US is voluntary. Which economy fared better? This is a false choice, because both force cooperation, and neither "is voluntary". How they do so, when, and how much, is what's different. That's the trouble here, it's not a "force or don't" choice. If you don't force anything, you'll have a bad time. Evidently, if you force too much, you're also likely to have a bad time. There's a lot of room—and not just on that one-dimensional measure—between the two extremes. > It makes me sad to read so many comments from people who are convinced that the only way to get cooperation is through force. You don't need to be sad, then, because you're reading that into it.

by orwin 5y ago

LesZedCB 5y ago

except that money isn't distributed democratically....... maybe if the government gave everybody a 'democracy fund' of $1000 to be distributed to whatever registered recipients/distributions. no more, no less spending on lobbying.

WalterBright 5y ago

I fail to see the virtue in forcibly spending someone else's money on your favorite cause, even if it is a good cause. A litmus test as to whether you really believe it is a good cause is if you're willing to spend your own money on it. And not a token amount, either. Real money.

lamontcg 5y ago
I could send my whole life savings / net worth off to some organization that is addressing climate change and it won't make a drop in the bucket and nothing will change.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  If all the people that voted for it did, then it would make quite a big difference. After all, where does the government money come from?
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    That is why taxation is coercive to force people to cooperate, and to provide guarantees that other people are cooperating in addition to you and to spread the load out. If you don't do that, the prisoners dilemma is so out of adjustment that everyone would start to defect and it would unwind. That isn't really a moral observation, but its the nature of the game being so out of whack where it is you vs. 330,000,000 other people. Cooperating or not cooperating can have a large effect on your own finances while each single individuals contribution is miniscule (3e-9). But this is already happening and why we need higher taxes on the 1% and .1%.
brimble 5y ago
This POV would be fine in a world where coordination problems didn't loom large. Effective collective action requires some "forcibly". Even when everyone agrees on what's good.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  That's why forced collective action does very poorly compared with voluntary cooperation. People don't like being forced. Microsoft, SpaceX, the free market in general, etc., do not rely on forcible cooperation. Yet it's very successful.
  - brimble 5y ago
    > That's why forced collective action does very poorly compared with voluntary cooperation. People don't like being forced. This is about the same as proclaiming a fringe explanation for relativity effects to be definitely true, in a physics thread.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      The USSR was forced cooperation. The US is voluntary. Which economy fared better? It makes me sad to read so many comments from people who are convinced that the only way to get cooperation is through force.
      - brimble 5y ago
        > The USSR was forced cooperation. The US is voluntary. Which economy fared better? This is a false choice, because both force cooperation, and neither "is voluntary". How they do so, when, and how much, is what's different. That's the trouble here, it's not a "force or don't" choice. If you don't force anything, you'll have a bad time. Evidently, if you force too much, you're also likely to have a bad time. There's a lot of room—and not just on that one-dimensional measure—between the two extremes. > It makes me sad to read so many comments from people who are convinced that the only way to get cooperation is through force. You don't need to be sad, then, because you're reading that into it.