> Phrased differently, if someone advocates for a policy that I believe will be harmful, why should I treat that differently than a stated intent to harm me?
For the same reason you shouldn't treat someone who wants to raise your taxes and give it to other people as if they intend to steal from you.
> The purpose of the original phrase in my opinion was to encourage cooperation and communication as the solution.
I agree that this might have been the original intention, yet the phrase has become a way of virtue signaling and looking down on those who assume malice. IMHO, difference is minuscule, because in many cases consequences are the same.
> Attributing this policy drive to altruism is truly naive wishful thinking.
And attributing it to malice is truly naive pessimistic thinking.
The reality is that both of those positions exist. There are people in government (and anywhere) that want to help or hurt people. I find transparency more helpful than hurtful, because we are in an age where there are public repercussions for visible actions.
>Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?
Because one positions imposes significant costs and restrictions, leaving your life significantly worse off.
Paying taxes to support the welfare of others is pro-social, but it means that I am laboring twice as much, instead of relaxing with my friends an family. It means that I am paying for the children of others using resources I would rather devote to my children. Why should I sacrifice my wellbeing for someone I don't know, and might not even like if I met them.
Many behaviors that fall under the Pro-social labor hurt the individual and benefit others.
If they are actually beneficial to the individual, they wouldn't need to be compulsory or the pro-social rhetoric.
>as long as I'm not defrauding or directly harming others
I'm curious, why "directly harming others"? The argument here is that you doing as you please (selling critical technology to the Chinese) is indirectly harming others so I'm curious about the distinction you draw between when it's okay to harm others and when it's not.
>The thing is, you get no money by looking out for others.
And our definitions of harm can greatly differ, to the point where two groups honestly believe the other group is doing harm. While some of these cases can be resolved with more knowledge, some of them depend upon ethical guidelines that are entirely subjective.
> The entire point of your comment is manipulating human beings.
The difference is in the intention for said manipulation. His comment isn’t trying to get us to part with our hard-earned income for ultimately frivolous goods.
It's hard to judge someones true intent, but I don't know that I've ever met a person that opposes benevolent programs of any sort if they aren't associated with costs. So if people truly do oppose social programs based only on the cost (both direct and indirect) I do believe that's an ethically defensible position. It's hard for me to imagine a person who doesn't want programs that help people, though and only uses cost as a way to shroud their ill-intent. I hope you're wrong about these people existing.
>You would never pay someone to tell you not to do something you want to do.
It's probably not the best idea to tell people what they will and will not do. A more accurate phrasing would have been:
> I would never pay someone to tell me not to do something I want to do.
That aside, I definitely would tell the state to warn me about things I want to do, if there's a good basis behind that warning. I would also pay the state to tell others who may have not had made the time/effort to research it.
This isn't limited to the state. People often pay professionals who in turn advise them not to do what they want to do - lawyers, nutritionists, doctors, therapists, tax professionals, real estate professionals, etc.
But that’s not your choice. It’s interesting that you indicate disagreement with how the money is spent, but not how it is taken. This seems like the same concern for those they are taking it from. Can you imagine how a society would function if it were based on consent?
> but if you never intend to sell, what possible harm could that do to you?
Operative word being if
> So what harm could this do to me?
It will harm those around you. I advise you look at yourself as a part of the American society you participate in - acting like we are separate is the source of many of our problems.
For the same reason you shouldn't treat someone who wants to raise your taxes and give it to other people as if they intend to steal from you.
reply