: Still an interest.But ntot one that entitles me to 'have a say' in what they do, simply to choose whether or not to accept the offer.
: Why worry about cons, trust them. Look, how can anyone objectively tell me when I need a swift visit to Mrs. Palm and her five beautiful daughters- I am teh only one who can say that, my subjective appreciation is the objective fact.
And any need (even palm based ones) can simply be claimed. In this socialism the claimant requires no evidence - simply 'feels' (how postmodernist) the need and makes the claim. Its so arbitrary and useless. Other people would be right to withold their productive effort from those who simply claim upon a dubious 'need'. In such a society it is those who stake a claim that get rewarded and those who hold back, who wish to conserve or plan that get least. A scrabble for goodies.
:Not representatives, admistrators, officials who carry out the orders given and decided by the others collectively. We've been through this one before.
And said offcials can build popular support, gain a supportive gang etc etc. To imagine the people in those roles as being ones attracted to it by the tendency to straight trustworthy dealing is fantasy.
: But need is a function of subjectivity, unless you revert to some dehumanising model in which humans are simply input out put parts of a greater process. Even gravity is known subjectively, as part ofan intersubjective appreciation of the world, we cannot know it beyond our own subjectivities.
I have explained that gravity is objective, the limitation is us - not gravities. Needs likewise are actual and objective - even if difficult to demonstrate. It isnt dehumanising to say that a person requires certain nutrition and shelter to remain alive. Without any standard whatsoever a person who comes and ask for some food has no more validity in his claim that one who demands a yacht, a beach hut and some ice cream. There are objective standards in reality, and people in general try to act in what they perceive them to be.
: Why? I want=I need. Simple as that.
Direct Democrat 1: "look, im needy dude, i'll have the stuff you made"
Direct Democrat 2: "Im not wasting my precious time supplying you with toys. I'll decide where my effort goes. Sod off."
: Well, as a last resort, we can look to a vote and see who has the majority of people thinking they are right, or we can debate the prpopositions and look for contradictions in teh argument.
The latter preferably. Imagine people taking a vote on how to install a power generator. A few engineers lead the arguments and build up to a vote. Of the 2 methods one is correct (it is the objectively 'right' way of doing it) and the other is wrong. The vot for the wrong and the generator blows up. reality wont listen to a vote. It simply is. Debate is important, but 'sight' and 'wrong' - especially in terms of choosing such courses of action are objective. Debate needs to uncover this, not simply form a majority opinion.
: A beautiful bridge, a beatiful chemcal plant, etc.
Groovy
: What would they do with them? I fail, beyond some sort of artistic performativity, to see a use. I mean particulalry, that an individual canot physically use that many jars.
With this you are setting objective standards - scrutinizing the request and considering it in the light of reason and reality. Jolly good.
: This asumes that power is a transcendental drive, and one that exists even if dicvorced from material beneifts. I don't agree,I think power is largely connected with material gain, and is a function of culture.
Whats to stop one gang gaining more? There is no enforcement. Strongest can win.
: You're missing the point- capitalism tries to push down budgets, regardless of allocation or availablity.
Thats secondary (and very good when we go shopping for beans) - the major point is that resources must be allocated by people - and that creates said opportunity.
: Irf I sold glue to someone I knew was going to use it for sniffing, or give it to kids for sniffing, I'd be failing my common law duty of care.
Now you have to show intent. How about if you sell a car to someone who for all purposes seems ok, but then drives recklessly and dies?
: Those words were uttered to a Congressional hearing, by the Directors of teh tobbacco companies, a few days later, a secret document from one firm reading something like 'we are in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive susbtance' came to light.
Take him outside!
: Considering he was unable to stop once he started, you can say he's not to blame.
If one person is able to stop (loads do every year) then why is he not? Stopping smoking is not only possible, its an actual experience for millions. Difficulty is no excuse. If you know its damaging you and then you continue to do it you are making a value choice.
