There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.

  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s not a valid political strategy if you never account for losing your own money. It’s not $30 or nothing. It’s $30 or I file bankruptcy and have all my possessions taken away from me.

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Missing out on $30 vs losing $30 (or $300, or $3000, etc) doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It does.

        Maybe for someone who has nothing to lose it doesn’t.

        We call that privilege.

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The stakes can change your risk-benefit assessment, but the fundamental dynamics are the same. Even if there’s a gun to my head, there are limits to what deal I’ll accept. “Kill another captive and I’ll let you live five more minutes,” for example.