Is tripartisanship over the SNP's bid to retain the £ bullying?

[visualnickmos]

Actually I think it's more a long term thing.
There's no one in politics that doesn't believe in the whole free market economics thing.
The Labour party have blown it
The Lob Dems have f*cked up big time
and the credible alternative of the Greens wont be voted for enough because people believe more in self interest than altruism.

So there's no real change at all

MrGG

I agree with you as well! Pretty much word for word. But also with Flosshilde's short-term statement; the tories know that there is no chance of them winning outright at the next (2015) election, and are really just doing anything that pops into their collective brain on a damage limitation basis.

[Beef Oven!]

Actually I think it's more a long term thing.
There's no one in politics that doesn't believe in the whole free market economics thing.
The Labour party have blown it
The Lob Dems have f*cked up big time
and the credible alternative of the Greens wont be voted for enough because people believe more in self interest than altruism.

So there's no real change at all

Altruism? How would a system based on altruism work?

[visualnickmos]

Altruism? How would a system based on altruism work?

I don't think Beefy was suggesting it would work, just making the observation that self-interest - perhaps both long and short term, is what predominates.

If I got it wrong, Beefy - apologies.

[Flosshilde]

Altruism? How would a system based on altruism work?

Other systems based on self-interest haven't*, so it's surely worth giving one based on altruism a try?


*strictly speaking they have worked, for a very small section of the population who manage to run or control those who run the system. But they have not worked for about 90% of people. So perhaps even a system based on self interest would be acceptable if it was based on the self interest of the 90%.

[MrGongGong]

Altruism? How would a system based on altruism work?

Many of us are more than prepared to vote for something that might make is personally "worse" off BUT make the world a better place, this has nothing to do with people being rich enough to afford it BUT more to do with thinking that acquiring more and more money isn't necessarily the most important thing in life.
SO instead of appealing to individual greed we had politicians who took a more humane stance.
NOT selling arms to dodgy regimes would make the UK "poorer" in £ terms but much richer in ways that matter more.

[Flosshilde]

Many (most?) people see 'altruism' as something that benefits other people, but not themselves. The truth is, however, that altruism benefits everyone, in different ways - some people might be better off in economic terms (in the widest sense), but also in improving quality of life, both at a community level and a personal level, but even if people are worse off, in having less money, they will derive benefits from the improvements in other people's lives.

[Serial_Apologist]

Many (most?) people see 'altruism' as something that benefits other people, but not themselves. The truth is, however, that altruism benefits everyone, in different ways - some people might be better off in economic terms (in the widest sense), but also in improving quality of life, both at a community level and a personal level, but even if people are worse off, in having less money, they will derive benefits from the improvements in other people's lives.

A system based on altruism would be impossible under capitalism, which depends on envy and dissatisfaction with having only what you've got, as even its advocates always admit.

[Beef Oven!]

Many (most?) people see 'altruism' as something that benefits other people, but not themselves. The truth is, however, that altruism benefits everyone, in different ways - some people might be better off in economic terms (in the widest sense), but also in improving quality of life, both at a community level and a personal level, but even if people are worse off, in having less money, they will derive benefits from the improvements in other people's lives.

Lol!

[Beef Oven!]

Many of us are more than prepared to vote for something that might make is personally "worse" off BUT make the world a better place, this has nothing to do with people being rich enough to afford it BUT more to do with thinking that acquiring more and more money isn't necessarily the most important thing in life.
SO instead of appealing to individual greed we had politicians who took a more humane stance.
NOT selling arms to dodgy regimes would make the UK "poorer" in £ terms but much richer in ways that matter more.

Hmm, which species are you thinking of?

[Beef Oven!]

A system based on altruism would be impossible under capitalism, which depends on envy and dissatisfaction with having only what you've got, as even its advocates always admit.

I smell the vernacular of nostalgic socialism. Things have moved on, can't view the world through sepia-tinged specs, it's 2014!

[MrGongGong]

Hmm, which species are you thinking of?

Obviously not the smoked fish variety
but i've met many humans who would go along with things being different
its a shame that there is such a lack of imagination in so many people

[visualnickmos]

I smell the vernacular of nostalgic socialism. Things have moved on, can't view the world through sepia-tinged specs, it's 2014!

I see where you are coming from, but a government that actually does something to improve the lot of the most vulnerable, instead of clobbering them when they are already down, to finance the tax cuts for the ultra-rich, would be nice. I can carry on dreaming I suppose....

They're all crap, politicians.

[Beef Oven!]

Obviously not the smoked fish variety
but i've met many humans who would go along with things being different
its a shame that there is such a lack of imagination in so many people

We were talking about altruism, what are you on about now?

[Serial_Apologist]

We were talking about altruism, what are you on about now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan

?

[P. G. Tipps]

A system based on altruism would be impossible under capitalism, which depends on envy and dissatisfaction with having only what you've got, as even its advocates always admit.

I've never heard or read an advocate of capitalism use these words only the critics of capitalism!

Since Man arrived on earth, and started producing tools for himself, he has endeavoured to make life that bit easier for himself and his family and capitalism simply responds to that desire.

Does capitalism make everyone materially-rich and happy? Of course not! However for most people in advanced capitalist countries it has produced material comforts previous generations would have considered positively Utopian.

As for happiness that depends on individual circumstances and attitude and cannot be mass-produced by any political system. When it comes to greed it is not goods wot's to blame but humans themselves. They will fight over both goods and land whatever the system, and unhappiness and misery for the losers will inevitable ensue ... yes, even in happy old altruistic Bhutan ...

Here's something from your own Wiki link: (apologies in advance to amateur51)

Ethnic LhotshampasBhutanese refugees forcefully expelled from Bhutan arrived in Nepal in the early 1990s.

In the 1990s, Bhutan expelled or forced to leave nearly one-fifth of its ethnic Lhotshampa population.[50][51][52]The decision was motivated by the concern that the minority Lhotshampas were becoming increasingly politically vocal in their demands for a representative form of governance instead of the absolute monarchy. The Lhotshampas, the dissidents, were arrested and expelled from the country.[53] An alleged harassment campaign escalating in the early 1990s ensued, and afterwards Bhutanese security forces began expelling people. According to the UNHCR, more than 107,000 Bhutanese refugees living in seven camps in eastern Nepal have been documented as of 2008.[52] After many years in refugee camps, many inhabitants are now moving to host nations such as Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States as refugees. The United States has admitted 60,773 refugees from fiscal years 2008 through 2012.[54]
The government does not permit citizenship for Bhutanese refugees, so most of them have become stateless refugees.[55] Careful scrutiny has been used to prevent their relatives from getting ID cards and voting rights.[55] Bhutan considers the political parties of these refugees illegal and terrorist in nature.[55] Human rights groups initially claimed the government interfered with individual rights by requiring all citizens, including ethnic minority members, to wear the traditional dress of the ethnic majority in public places. The government strictly enforced the law in Buddhist religious buildings, government offices, schools, official functions, and public ceremonies.[55]

'Nuff said ...