Hacker News Reader

Comment by kazinator | Hacker News Reader

> However, some day your commute problem may not be solved and you may need to rely on public transportation. You may even find yourself needing a road or two at some time in the future.

At that time, I will pay the fare, or gasoline tax or whatever.

> a different line of reasoning would be better.

Like what? Vote in a way that is good for someone else, rather than yourself?

Here is an idea: everyone should vote in a completely myopic way based on what is immediately good for them today.

The big picture emerges from the total of the vote.

This is correct and how democracy works.

Democracy is not optimal; for that you want to remove voting and have centralized control.

View on HN

> Here is an idea: everyone should vote in a completely myopic way based on what is immediately good for them today.

If Vancouver had a referendum to get rid of bike lanes and ban bikes from streets entirely, I doubt you would be saying the same thing. There are far more drivers than cyclists. I guess in that case all the drivers should vote to get rid of bike lanes and ban cyclists?

> If Vancouver had a referendum to get rid of bike lanes

Right, because global referenda which mainly affect a minority are examples of democracy?

Should gays be allowed to get married? Let's hold a referendum! Should some natives be given back a piece of land? Let's hold a referendum!

For the record, I currently sometimes ride where bikes are banned, namely certain sections of certain highways. So I wouldn't care. And I'm not a big supporter of bike lanes.

I'm not opposed to the idea, however, of requiring cyclists to be licensed somehow as a requirement for the use of public roads that carry motor vehicles. Don't ban; qualify.

Referendums don't directly happen for issues like that, but they do happen indirectly through the parties we vote for. Say there was a party running for city council called the "Get Rid of the Bikes Party", where that was their main platform. Would you still encourage everyone to vote for what helps themselves personally?

If everyone voted for just the things that helped them and against everything else - whether in referendums, elections, whatever - minorities would pretty much always be repressed.

> Would you still encourage everyone to vote for what helps themselves personally?

If someone thinks that a city council whose main focus is getting rid of bikes is the best for them, they should absolutely vote that way. The idea that I would have someone vote for what she thinks is good for me rather than him or herself is absurd.

> Here is an idea: everyone should vote in a completely myopic way based on what is immediately good for them today.

Are you so also cavalier with your finances? Why not spend your money in a completely myopic way based on what will bring you happiness today. Next month will take care of itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com