Alternative Vote

[worm]

Yeah, it's in my self interest to put the interests of others before my own.

[worm]

even a moron can be right sometimes. Shame that's something you've yet to grasp from your own perspective.

[rabid]

Self interest is almost genetic - like the survival instinct.

[grumpyhack]

You're probably right. Thatcher certainly clicked into it, as did Blair and Cameron. Getting people out of that way of thinking is hard.

[worm]

You're probably right. Thatcher certainly clicked into it, as did Blair and Cameron. Getting people out of that way of thinking is hard.

[grumpyhack]

But we are. It's you and Neil that are seemingly stuck in that way of thinking. The self can be interested in things beyond greed, yet you're both still conforming to that very definition.

Individual responsibility, that Thatcher helped to promote, is a good thing. You shouldn't hide behind institutions and what someone higher up the chain told you. If you think it's wrong, then you should go out and challenge it.

[worm]

I can't answer for Neil (and anyway he's more than capable of answering for himself) but I don't accept that I'm conforming to that definition. What I try to do is get others to recognise that they don't have to conform and, as you say, go out and challenge. My point was that, sadly, too many people are still tempted to vote on the basis of self-interest. So if you can help people see that improving or challenging the present situation for others would also be in their interests you may get people to push for real change.

Edited April 27, 2011 by worm

[worm]

This is what I was referring to and reckon you may have been on about it too, Grumpyhack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.

[llcoolphil]

I can't answer for Neil (and anyway he's more than capable of answering for himself) but I don't accept that I'm conforming to that definition. What I try to do is get others to recognise that they don't have to conform and, as you say, go out and challenge. My point was that, sadly, too many people are still tempted to vote on the basis of self-interest. So if you can help people see that improving or challenging the present situation for others would also be in their interests you may get people to push for real change.

[eFestivals]

You've just done it again! You've just said self-interest in a negative sense.

that's because self-interest has a negative sense.

As for the philosophical bollocks you've posted, come back when you're able to show it as meaningful and not right-wing propaganda to justify right-wing self-interest.

[worm]

that's because self-interest has a negative sense.

[worm]

For example, the left use it to explain how and why class defines one's self-interests. So, in the case of yourself, it is due to the fact that you live in a relatively affluent society that you can become educated, informed and outwardly concerned enough to see that the world would be a better place without capitalism. For a lower class person living amidst a survivalist culture, it would be far more likely to be interested in finding food, shelter and safety from danger than to bother with such outward concerns.

This is an entirely leftist view.

Edited April 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Only if you think that the person's interests are negative. The term itself doesn't because there's nothing wrong with having interests. It's perfectly natural.

using an individualist's view on an individualist's view tells no one anything useful at all.

While it might be "perfectly natural" (tho normally you like telling people that there's no such thing as natural ) for a person to put their own interests first, that says nothing at all about the effects of those interests onto others. If the "perfectly natural self-interests" idea is followed thru on fully then it only results in war, death, and subjugation.

It is simply not possible for all people to follow their self-interests. And so the view you put forwards is nothing more than a bullies charter.

Whatever you're interested in is your self-interest. Both left and right wing academics use self-interest in this way. It's got nothing to do with politics.

Bullshit. That's merely self-justification for being a c**t.

[worm]

using an individualist's view on an individualist's view tells no one anything useful at all.

While it might be "perfectly natural" (tho normally you like telling people that there's no such thing as natural ) for a person to put their own interests first, that says nothing at all about the effects of those interests onto others. If the "perfectly natural self-interests" idea is followed thru on fully then it only results in war, death, and subjugation.

It is simply not possible for all people to follow their self-interests. And so the view you put forwards is nothing more than a bullies charter.

Bullshit. That's merely self-justification for being a c**t.

Edited April 28, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

What irrelevant rubbish.

The bit you struggle with as always is the 'enlightened' part. I'll repeat it for the fourth time:

Self-interest is what everyone operates from because if you're interested in righteousness and acting for the greater cause of a group, that's your self-interest. This is why your above rationale is utter shite.

Repeat it as many times as you like, it's still worthless self-interested bollocks, the bullies charter - which is why you find it so meaningful.

[worm]

Repeat it as many times as you like, it's still worthless self-interested bollocks, the bullies charter - which is why you find it so meaningful.

[eFestivals]

Erm, you're the one repeating unenlightened shite mate because you see the term as right wing when it isn't.

It is a fact that whatever you value is your self-interest. Some people are interested in only greed and pleasing themselves, thus they are unenlightened, whereas others are interested in society and a better world for all, thus they are enlightened.

Your value of society and not being a selfish twat is your self-interest. It is not a synonym for greed and selfish desire, as being greedy and hedonistic will be detrimental to the self.

What's the alternative? Social interest? That would still be self-interest. unself-interest? That's absurd. So what is your desire for an equal and fair society all about then? Martyrdom? That's still self-interest.

right wing brains just don't get it.

What is driving my desire for an equal and fair society? Not self-interest, as there's no benefit in this idea for me - it's the opposite. Not martyrdom - I am not sacrificing myself.

What is driving my desire for an equal and fair society? Rights. The right that others also have to what I might have. I have no rights above any other.

[rabid]

So, PR then. How would it be decided who goes to paliament?

[eFestivals]

So, PR then. How would it be decided who goes to paliament?

I presume you're meaning if the candidates come from a party list or not?

[worm]

right wing brains just don't get it.

[worm]

So, PR then. How would it be decided who goes to paliament?

[rabid]

I presume you're meaning if the candidates come from a party list or not?

[rabid]

It's already been discussed.

[eFestivals]

No I assume they come from a list, but do they just start at the top of the list and work their way down till they've filled all the seats they've got?

yup - that's the way it normally works with PR lists.

That part of things is the most unappealing part of PR, because each MP who gets his seat via a list* gets his powerbase from the party leadership and not the electorate. This means that they have less scope to assert their own ideas against the party's ideas.

(* depending which PR system is used, it's not necessarily the case that every MP gets his seat via a party list. The system used for the Scottish parliament [i forget which version of PR it is] has a mix of constituency MPs and list MPs).

Having said that, it's pretty much the case that they all follow the party line with the current FPTP anyway, so I'm not sure it's that big a deal. As far as I'm concerned, the downside of lists is more than compensated for by the more equal representation that's achieved via PR.

[eFestivals]

Leftist zealout.

tory scum.

Of course there is: Self-satisfaction, self respect, integrity, dignity or in your case self-righteousness. These things are important to you because you aren't struggling to stay alive.

Those things might be important to me, but it's still the case that wanting equality and fairness is not in my self-interest. I gain no benefit in giving away any advantage I have other others.