I know my argument is weak. I’d be the first one to rip it to shreds. For one, I’m mixing at least three issues:
- The relative merits of Labor and Liberal policies.
- The selfishness of people, which leads them to vote based on their hip pocket.
- The purpose of a national economy.
There really is no coherency to the argument. In a debate, I’d be shot down. For example, if we were arguing issue 2:
| Joan 1: | “That’s the point of democracy, Joan. If a policy is important to enough people, it will be weighted accordingly. If it benefits enough people, it will be voted in. By being selfish, the majority of people will be better off.” |
| Joan 2: | “But people are ignorant and short-sighted. You can’t rely on them to develop policy that benefits the country as a whole for the long term.” |
| Joan 1: | “Well, what alternative do you propose? An all-knowing benevolent dictator who will force us to accept what’s best for us?” |
| Joan 2: | Sigh. “No. I just wish people would think about other people and the future, that’s all.” |
I could easily have similar arguments with myself about the other issues.