4 ms·

When did a democracy or a democratic decision imply moral absolutes? That would be my question. does not mean that the state which implements high tax rates wi

When did a democracy or a democratic decision imply moral absolutes? That would be my question. does not mean that the state which implements high tax rates will achieve its desired results, and this does not speak to the morality of the average voter either. Agreed! Every situation is different and that is by no means a silver bullet. If people voted for increased redistribution to redistribute wealth than they are doing something to solve the 'real problem' as they see it. You are correct that it may not be the actual problem... But I do not think that you can effectively bring 'morals' into the equation of tax codes or being rich/poor. Personal responsibility means very very different things to any given person. I do not think you can find many extremely wealthy people who think they have a moral responsibility to help out their lesser man (feed the poor), while you can find many 'poor' people who think it should be their moral responsibility ('if you have so much more than you can ever use why can't you help those less fortunate' sort of thing).

nickff 13y ago
>"If people voted for increased redistribution to redistribute wealth than they are doing something to solve the 'real problem' as they see it." Your vote is unlikely to have any real impact, (the same is true of mine,) so while the people may be 'doing something', this 'something' may be the least effective action one could possibly take. I vote in every election, but even I must acknowledge that I would be doing much more for my fellow citizens if I spent the same amount of time picking up garbage from the streets.
- djs123sdj 13y ago
  The problem with this argument is that it ignores the basic contract of power in a (functioning) democratic government: The people, through their votes, lend their power to a government that aggregates that collective power to accomplish larger societal objectives (financing wars, building bridges, educating generations, enforcing civil society, etc), that would not be possible if the maintenance of society was left to everyone's individual will. Just as valid: peoples votes in elections after 9/11 gave the government power to compromise civil liberties in the name of security. Does your city have a street sweeping service (which are usually publicly funded by taxes approved by ... votes)? Without one, in an urban/suburban environment, your street would be full of garbage in no time, probably too much for you or other like-minded people to clean up. Votes aren't a solution for every large problem, but it's far fetched to say that don't have any impact. Much of what we take for granted in modern public conveniences happened because people voted for representatives that in turn supported those endeavors.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"Just as valid: peoples votes in elections after 9/11 gave the government power to compromise civil liberties in the name of security." I agree with you entirely on how the system functions, though not all people want to grant all the powers which the government has collected over the years, and it should not be assumed that a vote is a tacit agreement to the current system. >"Does your city have a street sweeping service (which are usually publicly funded by taxes approved by ... votes)? Without one, in an urban/suburban environment, your street would be full of garbage in no time, probably too much for you or other like-minded people to clean up." You assume the street must be state owned and maintained; plenty of private communities do a good job keeping things neat and tidy (though I do not live in one). >"Votes aren't a solution for every large problem, but it's far fetched to say that don't have any impact. Much of what we take for granted in modern public conveniences happened because people voted for representatives that in turn supported those endeavors." I never said that elections are bad, but saying that you "voted for 'x'" means that you did very little to actually make it happen, because individual votes are insignificant.

nickff 13y ago

>"If people voted for increased redistribution to redistribute wealth than they are doing something to solve the 'real problem' as they see it." Your vote is unlikely to have any real impact, (the same is true of mine,) so while the people may be 'doing something', this 'something' may be the least effective action one could possibly take. I vote in every election, but even I must acknowledge that I would be doing much more for my fellow citizens if I spent the same amount of time picking up garbage from the streets.

djs123sdj 13y ago
The problem with this argument is that it ignores the basic contract of power in a (functioning) democratic government: The people, through their votes, lend their power to a government that aggregates that collective power to accomplish larger societal objectives (financing wars, building bridges, educating generations, enforcing civil society, etc), that would not be possible if the maintenance of society was left to everyone's individual will. Just as valid: peoples votes in elections after 9/11 gave the government power to compromise civil liberties in the name of security. Does your city have a street sweeping service (which are usually publicly funded by taxes approved by ... votes)? Without one, in an urban/suburban environment, your street would be full of garbage in no time, probably too much for you or other like-minded people to clean up. Votes aren't a solution for every large problem, but it's far fetched to say that don't have any impact. Much of what we take for granted in modern public conveniences happened because people voted for representatives that in turn supported those endeavors.
- nickff 13y ago
  >"Just as valid: peoples votes in elections after 9/11 gave the government power to compromise civil liberties in the name of security." I agree with you entirely on how the system functions, though not all people want to grant all the powers which the government has collected over the years, and it should not be assumed that a vote is a tacit agreement to the current system. >"Does your city have a street sweeping service (which are usually publicly funded by taxes approved by ... votes)? Without one, in an urban/suburban environment, your street would be full of garbage in no time, probably too much for you or other like-minded people to clean up." You assume the street must be state owned and maintained; plenty of private communities do a good job keeping things neat and tidy (though I do not live in one). >"Votes aren't a solution for every large problem, but it's far fetched to say that don't have any impact. Much of what we take for granted in modern public conveniences happened because people voted for representatives that in turn supported those endeavors." I never said that elections are bad, but saying that you "voted for 'x'" means that you did very little to actually make it happen, because individual votes are insignificant.