pull down to refresh
All election results are the same regardless of whether I vote or who I vote for. That’s the definition of a pointless activity.
Feel free to continue not explaining the flaw in that statement.
this debate has elements of Newcombs Paradox / Calvinist pre determinism
Except that if we were to actually explore the arguments, instead of this pathetic display, we’d come to the conclusion that voting certainly could be individually rational if so many people weren’t doing it.
The real argument is that we’re perpetually existing well beyond the rational number of voters. If people were actually weighing their odds of changing the outcome and what that would benefit them against the cost of voting, far fewer people would vote and those who did would be those with the most riding on the outcome.
In the meantime, if anyone wants to compensate me for my time spent at the poll, I’d be happy to show up.
I think I pointed to Newcomb/Calvin because a lot of the debate might not be about the individual rationality of your actions, but about the type of person you are.
Like, "the world might be a better place if libertarians were as hive-minded in their approach to voting as communists," is a defensible claim. That doesn't make it individually rational to vote, but it makes a plausible claim about the benefits of irrational conduct.
Newcombian/Calvinistic pre-determinism also touches on that. Newcomb's paradox asks whether you should do something irrational because if you were the type of person who would do that, you'd actually be better off.
But, again, on the margin I would not be better off were I irrational in that way.
I would be better off if every other libertarian were irrational in that narrow way, regardless of whether or not I shared the irrationality.
Right, so the claim people are making is that you (and people like you) should all be more irrational. That's my take on it, anyway.
You’re giving them too much credit. They are clearly objecting to the claim that it is individually irrational, despite being completely unable to conjure a relevant argument to that effect.
I would have no disagreement with someone saying what you just said. My point would still be that it wouldn’t have mattered if I had not been included.
Obeying orders is always individually rational.
If I say to dig a trench, it makes no sense for you to claim it's all the same whether it's 100 men or 101 men doing the work. It's not actually up for debate. You have to go dig.
Because rationality is subjective. Effetism appears rational when you're subjectively incompetent, but subjective incompetence is not rational.
if anyone wants to compensate me for my time spent at the poll
Your comp is making a communists job more difficult, they have to recruit someone who then has to go out and pay a crackhead for a signature just to offset you. Each crackhead they sign up is an opportunity for them to get caught and face penalty.
Asymmetric warfare.
It's about the million of you.
You vote for communists through inaction.
You're the robot that allows humans to come to harm through inaction.
Counter argument to what? Your flawed framework? Can't explain gravity to someone who thinks the earth is flat.