United Left Alliance will form party, says Higgins

Soldie

doopa wrote: »

I'm still not sure about the purpose point. But then its not clear enough to ask further questions. I suppose in order to help understand - I get that the opposite of rational would be irrational. In this context what's the opposite of a purposeful actor/agent? I would imagine a lot of decisions and processes are a result of what's sometimes called contingency (where it means historical accident - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_contingency).

von Mises on purposeful behaviour:

Ludwig von Mises wrote:

Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.

doopa

Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.

just to clarify is this the actual definition or paraphrasing thereof? It seems like paraphrasing. I personally struggle with definitions or paraphrasings that rely on such ill defined concepts as those highlighted in italics. Furthermore the ones in bold seem to be fairly strong modifiers...

Can people can make unconscious adjustments to the state of the universe?
Can one's ego make meaningless responses to stimuli?
Is it possible to aim at things other than ends and goals?

Would yes to any of those mean that human action is not purposeful behaviour? Or another way - if one took out some/all the words in bold and italics would the definitions make sense.

There is a whole realm of human action or behaviour not covered by this idea of purpose.

20Cent

Funny how the "libertarians" will call anyone on the left brainwashed or indoctrinated. Then any thread they are in ends up with quotes from some obscure theory from the 1800's.

Soldie

20Cent wrote: »

Funny how the "libertarians" will call anyone on the left brainwashed or indoctrinated. Then any thread they are in ends up with quotes from some obscure theory from the 1800's.

Funny how you keep claiming you're not a socialist, but do nothing but defend socialism. Do you also find it funny that hoorsmelt referenced an obscure theory from the 1800s (the labour theory of value)?

Soldie

doopa wrote: »

just to clarify is this the actual definition or paraphrasing thereof? It seems like paraphrasing. I personally struggle with definitions or paraphrasings that rely on such ill defined concepts as those highlighted in italics. Furthermore the ones in bold seem to be fairly strong modifiers...

Can people can make unconscious adjustments to the state of the universe?
Can one's ego make meaningless responses to stimuli?
Is it possible to aim at things other than ends and goals?

Would yes to any of those mean that human action is not purposeful behaviour? Or another way - if one took out some/all the words in bold and italics would the definitions make sense.

There is a whole realm of human action or behaviour not covered by this idea of purpose.

You might be interested in reading Human Action, which is available for free online here. Part one is the part that deals with praxeology. It's been quite some time since I've read it, though, so I won't attempt to summarise the points.

20Cent

Soldie wrote: »

You might be interested in reading Human Action, which is available for free online here. Part one is the part that deals with praxeology. It's been quite some time since I've read it, though, so I won't attempt to summarise the points.

Wow after reading that document about praxeology by Mise from 1949 I'm convinced the right thing to do is pay the bondholders and cut benefits for the poorest in our society.

doopa

Soldie wrote: »

Funny how you keep claiming you're not a socialist, but do nothing but defend socialism. Do you also find it funny that hoorsmelt referenced an obscure theory from the 1800s (the labour theory of value)?

Getting vaguely back on topic - what is clear from this election is that neither the left in the form of the ULA nor the right have any real solutions to the problem. I suppose for real one could substitute new. I personally find that really depressing. I see the vote for the ULA at the moment solely as a protest vote, i.e. expression of discontent with the current system. I do also find it disconcerting that the average age of the so called radicals is so old. Surely they should be sub-40 at the very least. Joan Collins, Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Seamus Healy - they would be dinosaurs in any other popular uprising (I'm using that phrase for effect)!

If one labels FG as right - which hardly seems fair given that they are pretty centrist in reality. The five point plan is a rehashing of the same old policies that we in the West have had in one shape or form for ages. Its ok, but its hardly a solution to the crisis we're in. Obama, Sarkosy, Cameron, Kenny all seem to advocate pretty much the same time, hold tight and things will be back to normal in a bit. Hardly inspiring.

I'm not a fan of the tea-party but at least they have a bit of energy and excitement, the followers genuinely believe and are inspired by the policies. Can't really say the same for Kenny now can you? Or Boyd-Barret for that matter. Everyone seems to be so distracted by getting FF out no-one seems to be too bothered about who we replaced them with (on either side).

Soldie

20Cent wrote: »

Wow after reading that document about praxeology by Mise from 1949 I'm convinced the right thing to do is pay the bondholders and cut benefits for the poorest in our society.

That's strange, because it has nothing to do with bondholders and benefit cuts. To each his own...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

loldog

Soldie wrote: »

von Mises on purposeful behaviour:

Von Mises? Whose followers advocate child labour?

I will ever be on the opposite side of that. :mad:

Von Mises and Hayek were both petty aristocrats with medieaval ideas.

.

Boskowski

Here is my take if anyone cares to listen. And bare with me it's very 'macro' and very abbreviated cos I'm not planning to write a philosophical essay.

The human race as a wider entity seems to be some sort of sociopath. There may have been exceptions to this in some pockets but on the whole we are living the life of richer, bigger, faster, more, more, more with not much regard as to the consequences for other species, the environment, the planet, even for ourselves.
We have an inkling deep down that we're rapidly diminishing the very foundations of our existence by doing so but our approach to that is we'll deal with that when we come to it. We'll come up with something just in time, it'll be grand sure, and what do I care, I'll be long gone by then.
This sociopathic character which is 'us' as a macro entity is fuelled by our most dominant traits on an individual level. Which are our desire to amass material wealth and gain power over others to gain more material wealth to...what actually? We haven't really answered that question yet for ourselves but we carry on anyhow.

The Capitalist ultimately says 'Ye that's it and its fkn great. It's the way it should be, power and money are the be all and end all and you can waffle on as long as I'm on my way to the top.'
The Other Guy says 'Hold on a sec. There must be more to this, it makes no sense.' You may call that other guy a communist, socialist, environmentalist whatever. He's just the guy who says 'Lets think about this rat race thing for a moment. It seems to be a race in which we're running over ourselves to get quicker to that finishing line...which looks increasingly like an abyss.'

Now you may laugh at me. It even sounds silly to me going over it in the context of this thread, but there was so much fundamental stuff thrown around on liberal and social ideas so I thought may as well get real fundamental.

Discuss.

SupaNova

The Capitalist ultimately says 'Ye that's it and its fkn great. It's the way it should be, power and money are the be all and end all and you can waffle on as long as I'm on my way to the top.'

Free capitalism is about working to create wealth, how you use that wealth is up to you, whether it be to sit on it, spend it, or to start a business venture to further your wealth.

The Other Guy says 'Hold on a sec. There must be more to this, it makes no sense.' You may call that other guy a communist, socialist, environmentalist whatever. He's just the guy who says 'Lets think about this rat race thing for a moment. It seems to be a race in which we're running over ourselves to get quicker to that finishing line...which looks increasingly like an abyss.'

Capitalism makes sense. In a socialist society you do not get to keep your wealth, any productive persons wealth is taken and redistributed under the veil of common good, but ultimately you are transferring wealth into the hands of unproductive people. That doesn't make sense.

If you want equality and morality you need principles that reward people equally. Freedom and the right to keep your own wealth is fair. Telling unproductive people that they have rights to other peoples productivity and acting on this is about as far away from morality or equality as you can get.

Soldie

loldog wrote: »

Von Mises? Whose followers advocate child labour?

I will ever be on the opposite side of that. :mad:

Von Mises and Hayek were both petty aristocrats with medieaval ideas.

.

By all means we can play the man and not the ball. Marx's followers exterminated hundreds of millions of people in the name of the equality that you so crave.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

loldog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

These brigands always cloak their ideas as being well intentioned but in reality their motives are pure evil. Don't be their unwitting tool.

.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boskowski

SupaNova wrote: »

Capitalism makes sense. In a socialist society you do not get to keep your wealth, any productive persons wealth is taken and redistributed under the veil of common good, but ultimately you are transferring wealth into the hands of unproductive people. That doesn't make sense.

If you want equality and morality you need principles that reward people equally. Freedom and the right to keep your own wealth is fair. Telling unproductive people that they have rights to other peoples productivity and acting on this is about as far away from morality or equality as you can get.

You're obviously not getting the point I was trying to make.

Capitalism may make sense up to a certain point as in it seems most effective, natural way of 'progressing' our society. But progression in the capitalisat sense really means expand, multiply exploit, inhabit the very last corner of this place and turn every little thing into something that's somehow serving us.

isn't capitalism the lazy, easy answer to the question of 'what is it all about'? It says ultimately 'its about nothing, lets have a blast', but even moreso it says 'since its about nothing but me having a blast screw everyone else'.

ei.sdraob

Progression to what exactly?

david337

Originally Posted by Permabear
The Independents elected under the banner of the United Left Alliance will form a political party, Joe Higgins just announced on RTÉ. This could lead to the many splintered factions on the Irish hard left uniting together as one group.

I welcome this move. In fact, I look forward to the ULA (or whatever they will call themselves) becoming as loud, visible, brash, and united as possible, so as to utterly discredit themselves by the next General Election.

We don't need Trotskyism in Ireland in 2011. The Irish electorate will quickly come to realize that this faction is resoundingly set against our existence as an open market economy—upon which our prosperity and our future hinges. They will quickly reject the Boyd Barrett vision of turning us into some kind of Celtic Cuba.

Ah ha ha! Em let me see, how did Irelands great open market economy function? Basically we had a few groups of mainly men (I think there may have been one woman), (the boards of directors of the 4 banks), sitting around tables, playing a giant game of poker with money that was lent to them by other groups of men, sitting around tables in other countrys, who also were playing a giant game of poker with money that was lent to them by...
Well I think you can see where this is going:-)

They collected all the winnings, and we picked up the tab for the losses. Upon this our prosperity hinges?

As they say in the wire, 'the game is rigged'. Bring on the revolution!

Boskowski

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Progression to what exactly?

Exactly!

SupaNova

But progression in the capitalisat sense really means expand, multiply exploit, inhabit the very last corner of this place and turn every little thing into something that's somehow serving us.

That depends on the individual businesses whether they want to expand or not. Please give me an example of how free market capitalism is exploiting people please. Because most of the examples people give are completely false and misguided. Its serves the consumers, businesses can only produce what consumers want.

isn't capitalism the lazy, easy answer to the question of 'what is it all about'? It says ultimately 'its about nothing, lets have a blast', but even moreso it says 'since its about nothing but me having a blast screw everyone else'.

Capitalism doesn't try to answer any question of 'what is it all about?'. It doesn't say its about nothing. It doesn't have an opinion, free market capitalism is just an economic system. Socialist economic systems cannot work for reasons stated and has lead to hunger, poverty and death of millions, all in the name of some greater good.

What we have now is a a severely interfered with form of free market economics, interfered with by government and by central banks.

david337

Originally Posted by SupaNova
Capitalism makes sense. In a socialist society you do not get to keep your wealth, any productive persons wealth is taken and redistributed under the veil of common good, but ultimately you are transferring wealth into the hands of unproductive people. That doesn't make sense.

If you want equality and morality you need principles that reward people equally. Freedom and the right to keep your own wealth is fair. Telling unproductive people that they have rights to other peoples productivity and acting on this is about as far away from morality or equality as you can get.

Well I'm a socialist and I'm all for people getting to keep their own wealth and not letting it go to unproductive people. In fact that is one of the main reasons why I'm against capitalism. I see a reduction in the minimum wage as wealth being taken from the hands of productive people and being put into the hands of unproductive people. I see the Universal Social Charge as wealth going from productive people into the hands of unproductive people. I see the pension levies and the future water taxes has wealth going from productive people into the hands of unproductive people. Has you said that doesn't make sense!

Telling unproductive people, bankers, bondholders, international speculators, that they have rights to other peoples productivity and acting on this is as far away from morality as you can get, and that is why capitalism is evil:)

SupaNova

They collected all the winnings, and we picked up the tab for the losses. Upon this our prosperity hinges?

As they say in the wire, 'the game is rigged'. Bring on the revolution!

Free market capitalism lets profitable businesses survive and losing ones fail. Government decided to bail out failed banks not free market capitalism.

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

Free market capitalism lets profitable businesses survive and losing ones fail. Government decided to bail out failed banks not free market capitalism.

Does the fact that "free market capitalism" is a contradiction in terms not raise alsrm bells?

david337

Free market capitalism lets profitable businesses survive and losing ones fail. Government decided to bail out failed banks not free market capitalism.

Lets go into this in more detail. Those men who were sitting around tables gambling, the 4 boards of the 4 banks, were drawn from the boards of directors of the top 40 companies in Ireland. They were either the representatives of the top profitable businesses or had very close connections to them. Any distinction between profitable good productive businesses and these gamblers only lies on the surface. But below the surface things are not as they appeared.

As for the government bailing out the banks and not free market capitalism? The truth is, that they reason the governments of the world bailed out their banks is because they knew that capitalism had stopped working, and that the bailouts would function as a kind of a life support machine, and they are hoping that it will get back to health in the future. Though it hasn’t got back to health it’s a kind of a zombie undead capitalism now, a capitalism that produces very little. However the life support machine is powered by the blood, sweat and tears of ordinary people. A situation which has to end.

SupaNova

Telling unproductive people, bankers, bondholders, international speculators, that they have rights to other peoples productivity and acting on this is as far away from morality as you can get, and that is why capitalism is evil

The argument why should a hard working carpenter not get the same wage as a hard working banker(if there is such a thing) i agree definitely has moral basis. If there were a thousand people wanting carpentry work done and only a handful of carpenters, carpentry would be a rich profession in a free market economy, and we have pretty close to that in effect for lots of professions in the current system. Now when it comes to banking and money, in a free market economy you would also be allowed to set up your own bank and your own currency and try your hand at banking. Banks that had good stable currencies and offered good sound lending and saving options would survive. Those that didn't would be allowed to fail.

I agree that the current system is pretty evil, but it is not free market capitalism. I have championed doing an Iceland in debates with friends out of anger more than anything else. But in truth i don't how that would pan out. But even if you are angry with the system, socialism or moving to a bigger welfare state is definitely the wrong way to go.

Boskowski

SupaNova wrote: »

Socialist economic systems cannot work for reasons stated and has lead to hunger, poverty and death of millions, all in the name of some greater good.

And capitalism has done the very same all in the name of greed and profit.

And I haven't seen conclusive evidence that socialism cannot work. A lot of socialist experiments have failed because capitalism has thrown every single roadblock possible in their way e.g. tie up vast ressources in stupid arms race which of course suits capitalism just fine since arms are a great way of making huge profits at the expense of society.