2 ms·

I think "one person one vote" is a first principle. It's a moral axiom that people then derive democratic practices from. It's not necessarily something you d

I think "one person one vote" is a first principle. It's a moral axiom that people then derive democratic practices from. It's not necessarily something you derive from other principles or facts. It's along the lines of "every life has equal value". People can disagree with those sorts of principles, but they're not logical derivations of universally accepted principles and facts.

baddox 12y ago
I addressed that in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209696 Basically, I think that most people will not continue to make a moral argument if they are genuinely convinced that the results of that stance would be horrible for all (or most) people. If you believed that "one vote per person" would lead to a society where every is much poorer than they would be under some other system, I suspect you would not continue to claim it is a moral axiom.
- tunesmith 12y ago
  Yes - particular moral axioms are by definition not accepted by everyone. That is the trick; convincing people to adjust/change their values (moral axioms) and then derive different beliefs/actions from them. The reason that is a tough sell in this case is because it very quickly can come across as declaring a class of people as superior to another class of people. "One person one vote" might lead to certain negative side effects, but the side effects of an alternative can be much worse.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > That is the trick; convincing people to adjust/change their values (moral axioms) and then derive different beliefs/actions from them. What I'm saying is that if you can make compelling economic arguments for why a different system would be better, most people will not stick to their "moral axioms" if they buy the arguments. > "One person one vote" might lead to certain negative side effects, but the side effects of an alternative can be much worse. That's an economic claim, and is precisely what I challenge.

baddox 12y ago

I addressed that in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209696 Basically, I think that most people will not continue to make a moral argument if they are genuinely convinced that the results of that stance would be horrible for all (or most) people. If you believed that "one vote per person" would lead to a society where every is much poorer than they would be under some other system, I suspect you would not continue to claim it is a moral axiom.

tunesmith 12y ago
Yes - particular moral axioms are by definition not accepted by everyone. That is the trick; convincing people to adjust/change their values (moral axioms) and then derive different beliefs/actions from them. The reason that is a tough sell in this case is because it very quickly can come across as declaring a class of people as superior to another class of people. "One person one vote" might lead to certain negative side effects, but the side effects of an alternative can be much worse.
- baddox 12y ago
  > That is the trick; convincing people to adjust/change their values (moral axioms) and then derive different beliefs/actions from them. What I'm saying is that if you can make compelling economic arguments for why a different system would be better, most people will not stick to their "moral axioms" if they buy the arguments. > "One person one vote" might lead to certain negative side effects, but the side effects of an alternative can be much worse. That's an economic claim, and is precisely what I challenge.