Continuing a good discussion.: You're straying from the point, you have an interest in ensuring their safety.
But not a right to dictate it to them, nor a right to stand over their actions.
: It is possible, but if people agreed they actually wanted a bridge, they would have to behave so as to make it possible.
In other words those who can, cant because others wont.
: But everyone has that anyway, there would and could be no material gain, unless they wrecked the system as they find it- a difficult task.
They dont all have it if some find their influence 'more equal than others' due to ganglike support for their ends.
: There is a huge philosophical gulf between saying gravity is not obvjectively real, and saying
that we humans cannot 'know' it in an objective sense, being subject. A person incapable of
knowing gravity at all is not floating. A person unable to see a brick flying toward him suffers
the same consequence as one who has understood every law of physics and medical science
thus far known to man and made very accurate predictions about the consequences. To
undertake the latter excercise is rational - its testable and observable - the rationality of the
thought is borne out by what is. To say its all subjective and (if consistent) predict random or
no events is borne out as wrong by reality.
However, where the 'object' of study is humans, the object of study is the subject, which is,
erm, subjective, always.
If gravity has a specific identity then humans, being within the same universe and never having 'disobeyed' the known laws etc, are not exempt from a specific identity. Not exempt from objective reality. Not only does mankind have a specfic identiy as an animal, each one of use has further specific identity in our differences. fab.
: But 'live' is a value judgement, its not an objective criteion. And any 'majority of mankind' would be an abstraction that probably wouldn't fit most people exactly.
1) It can be an objective criterion. It is in medical examination. 2) it wouldnt. terrible thing this averaging out in the compromise of democracy. Still a useful summary of life requirements is quite do-able, and avoids the ludricous yacht / bread situ.
: No, you're confusing the lack of objective standards with a lack of value hierarchy, which is subjective- we would have to have values, yes, but they would have to be based on discussion, and debate, and ever changing.
And so a claim for a yacht could be seen as equal to a starving mans claim to bread - and the arbiter is the whim the voter and the persuasive force of the claimant. lets hope everyone is reasonable.
: He's a wanker then, if he's using social reources to produce anything, he must allow them to be socially used and available, unless he's working solely for personal favours.
There is one resource which is not equally the property of everyone else and that is his person. Why is he a wanker? he is making value / preference decisions.
What a terrible trap not having private property is. Anything you think of or do, upon enaction, becomes everyones without your ability to choose whom will be recipient. You create for your valued friends and are forced by the societal structure to benefit those you dont value, and even those you thoroughly dislike. not even in equal measure - but to the degree *they* decide!!
Thanks for making that clear. its a vital point.
: They may want evil things, but I think the point is that I trust myself, and if I turust myself, I see no reason not to trust others.
You are not them. They are not you. They are not eachother.
: Yes, but someone might well be able of eating a hundred jars,a nd some people I know would be killed by less than one. So there is no objective peanut butter standard, beyond that subjectively known by each.
And now you accept that differences within a persons make-up means that some can and cant. They dont get to decide "i wont be alergic to peanuts today". reality is the fact, they are...objectively allergic.
The most important areas in this thread were that reality is objective, it has a specific identity which is not contradictory nor subject to whim. Humankind cannot know something objectively, but the objectivity of what is remains. Also that in a social structure in which property is collectivised in its only consistent manner (ie everyone) a person is a defacto part of that which is owned by all, because any thought taking material form becomes everyones property. this is at the bottom of the oft repeated question "why would they bother working?" that you hear from bewildered posters, and explains their general dissatisfaction with the answers given.
