> This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives.
That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine".
Since I never clarified what I meant and you came up with such a specific notion, it would appear you're projecting some defensiveness here.
But I will go ahead and clarify my position: The fact of the matter is, the US is a combative system. For it to work properly, each side has to take the extremes of their own position so the result ends up in the middle.
The rich don't need the poor or middle class to vote as a rich person, they can literally pay people to do that for them if they wish. A poor person should vote for issues that help them specifically and directly. Forget trickle-down even if you're ignorant enough to believe in it.
A perfect example is right-to-work states. Within the last year or so I read a story about a husband in (I believe it was) Kentucky who was sent out on a neglected platform to do some work, it collapsed and he died. The family was simply out a husband, father and provider. They couldn't even sue because the way the laws worked in that state meant the company would have literally had to try and murder the man for the family to be able to sue over the indecent.
I bet if you talked to most people in that state, they would be for this law because they don't want people suing McDonald's over hot coffee, for example. But why would they care? They're closer to the burned woman than they are McDonald's, voting their interests would mean they vote for the ability to sue McDonald's if they accidentally burn themselves.
Of course ditto-heads will scream "yea but if we did that it would ruin the whole country!" and indeed if the poor and middle class always got their way it would. But that wouldn't happen. Voting their own interests would simply pull the final result closer to the middle. That is, it would present ridiculous situations like a family not even being able to sue a company for a true case of near-criminal negligence and wrongful death.
Correct, I was taking up an example, which is why I used the phrase "one might say". I didn't advocate a specific position (higher or lower taxes). I am completely detached; I don't participate in the political system in America (neither do I plan to ever) so I simply don't care.
I am not in disagreement with your thesis. The problem that bugs me is this presumption that the people are not cognizant of what is good for them. Maybe, the people do something for a reason which is of interest to them (but not the reason that someone else thinks is right for them). E.g. maybe, the people who sue McDonalds don't want their neighbor becoming rich while they are poor. This of course is not limited to the poor; this is a human thing. I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes; then again that is my opinion and is not necessarily the same as his. If you examined your decisions over a certain period of time, you will find that the reasons you do something are not necessarily in accordance with what society (or $person whom you think is smarter than you) does them for.
Go to America. Live there for a while. Move to a red state and actually talk to people. This presumption won't seem so arrogant when you meet so many people for which there is no other logical conclusion to make.
>I would argue that it is not in Warren Buffett's self interest to vote for higher taxes
It's not, but the voting environment has gotten so skewed that people like Buffet feel they have to abandon voting in their best interests to try and get some kind of balance. At least they claim to publicly.
In my mind, the only way to vote is to vote your conscience, not what happens to give me the greatest personal gain. "The God Delusion" by Dawkins includes a great (and somewhat Rawlsian) rule, 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
E.g., as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
But there's an entirely different philosophy out there. Taxes, which are non-voluntary by nature, are theft and therefore unethical. It's hard for many to conceptualize, but you can actually help the poor and those causes you care about and be anti-tax. It's not like we're a bunch greedy bastards. We just think voluntary society and government is the more ethical path.
Then you should abstain from voting in the present US system because that's not how it works nor how it was designed to work. It's a combative system where compromise is achieved by basically averaging the desires of the interested parties.
> 'Always devise your rules as if you didn't know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.'
This is a Utopian way to govern, which would be great. But it doesn't apply to the US system. If your position is reasonable and the other side is pushing extremely toward their interests you're going to end up with the middle point between you both.
> as a libertarian, I consider taxes to be unethical regardless of whether I gain a net profit from them or not.
Fine, consider what ever you like. But when you vote you should vote for what directly helps you personally. Giving billionaires tax breaks can't possibly help you in any manner.
I look forward to the day when the US reaches the level of political enlightenment that having an uncle who is a libertarian is as embarrassing a revelation as having an uncle in the KKK is today. There is a reason that this party exists only inside the US and probably couldn't even be sensibly articulated to anyone from another country.
Why? Your vote doesn't matter. The probability of your vote affecting the outcome is so small it can't be represented with a double precision floating point [1].
So why shouldn't the poor do the same thing everyone else does, namely vote for the guy who makes them feel good?
(Incidentally, the idea that the poor vote R is statistical artifact caused by state level aggregation. http://www.tino.us/2012/11/republicans-may-be-many-things-bu... )
[1] I'm looking at state/federal elections here. Your vote might matter in, e.g., your local school board election.
The coffee's temperature met McDonald's policy. They set it higher than their competitors because they assumed people would keep it in a cup holder and want it to be a more drinkable temperature when they arrived at their destination. Today, McDonald's has not changed their policy and still serves coffee at 80-90C, and places like Starbucks serve it at similar or higher temperatures. They are able to do this because of better packaging that's less likely to spill the entire drink even if it's dropped on your lap like Liebeck did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...
Personally, I don't think that it was a frivolous lawsuit. She did receive serious burns, more serious than I would expect someone to receive from spilled coffee.
HN is pretty good at programming and startups, but even the shortest expedition into history gets even the most amateur historians all wound up and LOL.
The fundamental problem was regionalism and federalism vs states rights. Not talked about for obvious political reasons now a days because that would bring up obvious difficult questions... All the issues mentioned were trees in the forest being fought over as PR fodder for the bigger issue of the south wanted to be the south and didn't want some yankee telling them anything, even if the yankee was correct. Extreme stubbornness on both sides. Then the war of northern aggression started because the southerners told the northerners to F off and leave them alone too many times.
If you could have magically removed slavery and plantations from the history of the south and reinsert another set of trees like space alien contact and medieval era 3-d printers, the forest would remain and the civil war would have been fought more or less the same way over PLA vs ABS figurines of intellectually protected property of images of space aliens or something.
The Trees Just Don't Matter (compared to the forest)
To some extent I believe this comes from the HN population consisting of many unmarried people. Trust me, once you get married you can bicker over stuff that has nothing to do with the real issue all day if you want.
