3 ms·

> virtue signalling: demanding the government fund your favorite cause yeah, not really. if the cause is something massive like global warning, it isn't happe

> virtue signalling: demanding the government fund your favorite cause yeah, not really. if the cause is something massive like global warning, it isn't happening due to the actions of individuals one by one, and its bigger than any charity. and making it an individual moral problem isn't helpful because it always devolves eventually into the "so you criticize society, yet you participate in it, curious" problem. the government is supposed to be there for the big problems, to get the government to move you have to do PR of one form or another.

WalterBright 5y ago
Perhaps true, but that has no bearing on whether you're being virtuous or not. For example, if you bike to work, you're being virtuous. If you drive your musclecar to work, you're not. How you vote has nothing to do with virtuosity.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I am missing something about this distinction: It seems your actions, such as organizing community action via government or voting, are definitely implicated in your virtue. Why are these actions, which have serious consequences, treated differently from other actions? If I organize neighbors to pickup trash, or work through city council to clean the street, what is the difference other than the mechanisms?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    The difference is are you sacrificing, or are you forcing others to sacrifice? How is it virtuous to make somebody else bear the cost of your dreams? Note that organizing neighbors to pick up trash is a purely voluntary task by you and your neighbors. I know that politicians routinely offer you virtue by voting for them to make someone else pay. But I hope you can see it's a false virtue.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Thanks for explaining and I understand your point. Regarding others or myself sacrificing: It is necessary in anything, if we are to accomplish much, for many people to contribute; not much happens alone. So generally no one person can do most of the sacrifice (and I'm not sure it's such a sacrifice), but I definitely believe in doing more than my share. The other part I think is rooted in common-on-HN perspective on government that I don't happen share. To me, doing it through local government or through organizing neighbors aren't much different. Democracy is another mechanism for how we get together and do things: We take a vote, we agree that we'll go along with the results - sometimes what I like to a greater degree, sometimes to a lesser one, but we also agree that we need to act as a community sometimes and can't be paralyzed, and that others' preferences are just as deserving as mine; and we have the enlightenment and good will and, failing that, the enlightened self-interest, to see that by working together in good faith we can achieve so much more for ourselves. To me, the idea of compulsion as the basis of democratic government is an interesting philosophical and theoretical question - and answered largely by free elections, representation, free speech, and limited government. Anarchy is similar to me - a philosophical / theoretical question but not reality. They seem to me like some things on HN, in a intellectual atmosphere - a theory taken to the extreme of thinking it's real, or of testing its boundaries by insisting it's real and challenging people to disprove it, rather than something used a tool for exploring reality. Because as a practical matter, I don't see the compulsion: People follow the rules and laws because they want to; we are social beings, even evolved to live socially and emotionally fall apart if alone. I pay my taxes, follow most laws because I would anyway (e.g., I don't want to murder or steal), and others because I want to do my part for my neighbors; I respect my neighbors votes. Compulsion isn't the basis, it's just a band-aid solution we sometimes use; there aren't nearly enough resources to make everyone obey if they don't want to. You seem to think differently, which is fine, but I think it's factually wrong to assume that everyone - who almost all live in democracies - agrees. Also, I think the compulsion theory is yet another attempt by certain groups (not you) to attack our democracy, to politicize the very idea of it, by transforming it from an achievement of humanity and a way we can live with hope and progress, to something dark and pernicious.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
gotechnow 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago

Perhaps true, but that has no bearing on whether you're being virtuous or not. For example, if you bike to work, you're being virtuous. If you drive your musclecar to work, you're not. How you vote has nothing to do with virtuosity.

wolverine876 5y ago
I am missing something about this distinction: It seems your actions, such as organizing community action via government or voting, are definitely implicated in your virtue. Why are these actions, which have serious consequences, treated differently from other actions? If I organize neighbors to pickup trash, or work through city council to clean the street, what is the difference other than the mechanisms?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  The difference is are you sacrificing, or are you forcing others to sacrifice? How is it virtuous to make somebody else bear the cost of your dreams? Note that organizing neighbors to pick up trash is a purely voluntary task by you and your neighbors. I know that politicians routinely offer you virtue by voting for them to make someone else pay. But I hope you can see it's a false virtue.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Thanks for explaining and I understand your point. Regarding others or myself sacrificing: It is necessary in anything, if we are to accomplish much, for many people to contribute; not much happens alone. So generally no one person can do most of the sacrifice (and I'm not sure it's such a sacrifice), but I definitely believe in doing more than my share. The other part I think is rooted in common-on-HN perspective on government that I don't happen share. To me, doing it through local government or through organizing neighbors aren't much different. Democracy is another mechanism for how we get together and do things: We take a vote, we agree that we'll go along with the results - sometimes what I like to a greater degree, sometimes to a lesser one, but we also agree that we need to act as a community sometimes and can't be paralyzed, and that others' preferences are just as deserving as mine; and we have the enlightenment and good will and, failing that, the enlightened self-interest, to see that by working together in good faith we can achieve so much more for ourselves. To me, the idea of compulsion as the basis of democratic government is an interesting philosophical and theoretical question - and answered largely by free elections, representation, free speech, and limited government. Anarchy is similar to me - a philosophical / theoretical question but not reality. They seem to me like some things on HN, in a intellectual atmosphere - a theory taken to the extreme of thinking it's real, or of testing its boundaries by insisting it's real and challenging people to disprove it, rather than something used a tool for exploring reality. Because as a practical matter, I don't see the compulsion: People follow the rules and laws because they want to; we are social beings, even evolved to live socially and emotionally fall apart if alone. I pay my taxes, follow most laws because I would anyway (e.g., I don't want to murder or steal), and others because I want to do my part for my neighbors; I respect my neighbors votes. Compulsion isn't the basis, it's just a band-aid solution we sometimes use; there aren't nearly enough resources to make everyone obey if they don't want to. You seem to think differently, which is fine, but I think it's factually wrong to assume that everyone - who almost all live in democracies - agrees. Also, I think the compulsion theory is yet another attempt by certain groups (not you) to attack our democracy, to politicize the very idea of it, by transforming it from an achievement of humanity and a way we can live with hope and progress, to something dark and pernicious.
    - WalterBright 5y ago

gotechnow 5y ago