|
 Originally Posted by jack
In a democracy; if everyone votes in accordance with what is best for them and those that directly depend on them, would the results of said election not be the absolute best outcome for most? Literally. I think this is the most correct use of "Literally" possible.
No. Imagine if a majority thought the best outcome was a life on benefits. So everyone votes for the "let's do fuck all" party and they win. Suddenly there isn't enough tax to pay the benefits for everyone who's doing fuck all.
An extreme event, but it demonstrates that people acting in their own interests does not necessarily result in a society that is better for the majority.
I mean, you can argue I did act in my own best interests. I didn't vote Labour because I think their economic model increases the chance that the country can no longer afford to give me a pittance of an income. I didn't vote Tory either, but I trust them with the economy more than Labour because they're self serving capitalist pigs, they want a strong economy so they get more money. I might be made to feel like a "scrounger" by the Tories, but they at least have succeeded in sustaining an economy capable of paying its scroungers. Labour would likely increase tax and stifle the economy until they get voted out, giving the Tories another excuse to rob people by means of austerity.
Our politics is a choice between thieves and idiots. With a gun to my head, I'd choose the thieves. There's no gun to my head, so I can draw a cock on my ballot instead for a moment of personal satisfaction that might or might not offend a dear old lady in the counting office. All hail democracy.
|