I need to think more about your suggestion about loyalty, but regarding the last point: it actually can explain it, in the same way. If each individual receives a social advantage from supporting the creation or enlargement of welfare then welfare will be created or enlarged, even if each individual would rather it wasn’t (because again, the political influence of each individual separately is very small).
I don’t think “Moloch” is a good word for “People vote according to what they think is a morally good instead of voting in their own self interest”. People not voting in their self interest is good.
Charity means that an individual person who donates more money won’t have a significant effect by funding a big charity but a high person cost. On the other hand, raising the tax rate has a much lower personal cost for the amount of good that gets created. Paying for collective welfare collectively makes a lot of sense you believe it should be funded but don’t want to fund a disproportionate part yourself.
I need to think more about your suggestion about loyalty, but regarding the last point: it actually can explain it, in the same way. If each individual receives a social advantage from supporting the creation or enlargement of welfare then welfare will be created or enlarged, even if each individual would rather it wasn’t (because again, the political influence of each individual separately is very small).
I don’t think “Moloch” is a good word for “People vote according to what they think is a morally good instead of voting in their own self interest”. People not voting in their self interest is good.
Charity means that an individual person who donates more money won’t have a significant effect by funding a big charity but a high person cost. On the other hand, raising the tax rate has a much lower personal cost for the amount of good that gets created. Paying for collective welfare collectively makes a lot of sense you believe it should be funded but don’t want to fund a disproportionate part yourself.