This is true and explains a lot of situations where people seemingly vote against their own self-interest. The fact that responders choose to reject in the Ultimatum Game[1] shows this in action.
But an even more fascinating example than the ultimatum game (sorry can't find the link) is research that shows subjects are willing to pay money to burn the money of others, just so the other test subject ends up with less. For example, offer to give test subject A $10, tell him that you're giving subject B $20, and then give subject A the option of giving up $2 of those $10 just to reduce the subject B's gift from $20 to $5. It was found that a percentage of people will be willing to accept that choice even though it's not the action of someone with rational economic self-interest.
I'm not saying it's the best decision but there are rational explanations.
In an absolute sense, though, it would only be better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven if the status of a servant in Heaven was worse than that of a ruler in Hell. Status is relative, but not only relative to the other participants in the study - it's relative to the entire population. I'd prefer to get $10 and have one neighbor get $20 than $8 and $5, because the wealth of millions of people establish the price of goods to me, not one person getting a little more. In a world where a million people get $0, I get $10, and someone else gets $20, I'm relatively wealthier than if a million people still got $0, I got $8, and my neighbor got $5.
Yeah, it might be more economically rational to seek to get $8 million if the entire world was going to get $20 million if I didn't take the option, but then there's the old saying "a rising tide lifts all boats..."
But certainly a font of great insight into base human desire, according to many traditions. It's why "a deal with the Devil" is a trope: the Devil knows exactly what to offer humans in exchange for corruption. So, the GP's quote is apt: an offer to "rule in Hell" vs. "serve in Heaven" is indeed a tempting one for many people.
Do you disagree with Mr Satan's point or do you reject it simply because it comes from him?
So to respond to your question, I do disagree with "Satan's" point.
It is clearly in the interest of an individual to keep all of what they are given, rather than to spend a portion simply to lower the portion given to another.
Along the same train of thought, I would say, "The least of us can achieve greater heights when lifting each other up, than the greatest of us can by pushing each other down."
Very limited principles of equality. Slavery, natives, women, unlanded peasants...
This sums up the majority of rural republicans in my area. It's a sad realization that people so often put not being at the bottom above their own best interests.
1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...
Nobody ever ended up on top of the world by not believing in themselves.
The article also had an interesting point as to why so many think they're in the top tiers: they're not surrounded by things they can't afford. Contrast my home state of Indiana, where I would have been hard pressed to tell you where to buy a Ferrari in the entire state, with the Seattle, WA area where I can list two Ferrari dealers within 30 minutes of my house. If the prancing horse isn't your style, there's a Lambo dealer in Bellevue. (Next door to the Rolls/Bentley dealer, IIRC.) I see multiple Teslas on the way to work, and I no longer think anything of seeing a Ferrari or Lambo on the way to work once or twice a week. I've regularly bicycled through Medina, WA (where BillG lives). I know what ridiculous wealth looks like, and I know that I'm not currently that wealthy and realize it's extremely unlikely that I ever will be. But if I lived in Zionsville, IN (which has, last I checked, the only Rolls-Royce dealer in the entire state) where a half million buys 5400 square feet and an acre in a super ritzy neighborhood, I might think I've "made it" and am amongst those in the top tier.
Anyway, I digress. There's ambition, then there's delusion.
Tennessee also has the lowest state debt per capita of any state, $6,400 versus $20,500 for California. It's got only $415 in unfunded pension liabilities per person, versus $3,250 in California. It's among the top-10 states for lowest tax burden, lower unemployment than average, and higher than average growth in GDP per capita.
Tennessee has made a conscious decision not to pay for public services now by pushing the burden onto future generations. After the governments of places like California and Illinois collapse under the weight of their debts, places like Tennessee will at least be able to plod along offering limited government services in a sustainable way.
(a) The "collapse" you refer to presumes that neither state will be able to tax their way out of its problems, when in fact either could do so without coming close to the tax burdens of European countries that provide similar benefits --- the implied idea here is that the states are so competitive that people would simply move to Nevada or Indiana to escape those taxes. Will they? People who live in Evanston are unlikely to enjoy Munster.
(b) In both states, the "benefit" that's been financed on the backs of future generations is generous, poorly-regulated defined-benefit pension plans for state employees. I agree that's a huge problem, but it's not the same kind of problem as financing for Medicaid, or, really, for social services of any sort.
They won't expand Medicaid, are in the process of out sourcing many state jobs (parks, university) and will continue to stick it to working families.
Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure there's still someone else in a worse situation than themselves.