I’m finding this digression, where Terr insists that voting is futile and people try to explain collective action to her, sort of interesting, but it should be its own thread.
I’m sorry. I had already slightly hijacked the thread into my advocacy for proportional representation; I did not mean for one throwaway line
in my argument to turn into pages of Terr insisting that this is not just a common misperception but literally logically true.
So let’s put it this way. The beauty of PR is that many non-voters who think, like Terr, that voting is futile, would have cause to stop thinking that way. And that’s one reason I seek PR and not just “better districting.”
I’m not sure if that’s beside the point of the OP, or if it is a fair point to just denounce single-member districts as silly on their face. :dubious:
Not to be too flippant, but people who don’t like politics will always find something to complain about. For example, if 54% of Coloradans vote Democrat, they will get 4 of the state’s 7 congressional seats. If 57% of Coloradans vote Democratic, in all likelihood they will still have 4 of 7 congressional seats, and those who voted in the majority will complain that their votes didn’t count enough.
Very different setup from the one you were suggesting - that is, when one sees someone dropping a quarter in Salvation Army bucket, they are compelled to donate too.
It’s unlikely that I’m going to happen to find a study that exactly replicates my hypothesis. It’s very reasonable to suppose that giving a quarter (which also might, on its own, provide a real benefit to a person and society) visibly might stimulate someone else to give.
So, based on the real benefit to an individual and society that even a gift of a quarter can provide, as well as the possibility that it may motivate others to give, it’s very reasonable to conclude that giving a quarter to the charity bucket is a good and positive act for society.
It’s pretty close, as are the other discussions and studies I’ve linked to. I’ve demonstrated that social pressure plays a significant role in charity giving, which means it’s very reasonable that your giving at least may have the potential to influence others.
If you want to continue to justify not making small donations to charities, that’s just a bit sad to me. I think it’s rather hard-hearted… it takes zero effort and very little material sacrifice, and even if my “social pressure” hypothesis is incorrect, it still offers material benefit (such as a snack or meal for a needy child) to individuals and society.
In Sunday School I was taught Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
The same lesson, rephrased, is present in the Talmud, Gospels, and other religious texts. Too bad it isn’t taught in the LiberTerrian schools.
I think LiberTerrians would be happy to litter, knowing that their stray piece of plastic will have about zero effect on the environment. Whether they “believed” in AGW or not, there’d be no reason for them to reduce their emissions, only a few billionths of the human total. Though they’d be using their competitive skills to get the best pickings if forced to panhandle, when prosperous they’d never sacrifice themselves altruistically.
And of course, why should they vote?
It seems a waste to debate political or economic policy with people that don’t even know or respect The Golden Rule.
That’s the difference between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism’s golden rule is “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you”. There is an enormous difference between the two.
Sure. And it makes sense and is reasonable to feel good about giving, even small amounts, because it provides real, material benefit to people and society, and because it may influence others to give.
I note that some things can satisfy the one but not the other – e.g., to an anti-Semite, “Kill all Jews!” would satisfy the Categorical Imperative, but not the Golden Rule.
Yes, you have to figure that at the federal level, the people who do the nuts-and-bolts planning for the Republicans are a lot smarter than their Democratic equivalents. As the article pointed out, the Democrats put very few resources into holding onto legislatures at the state level, a mistake that hurt them in 2010 and 2012 and very likely will also hurt them in 2014, 2016 and 2018. Five elections screwed because they didn’t pay attention to the potential of a well-known political ploy like gerrymandering. Pathetic.
