: But not a right to dictate it to them, nor a right to stand over their actions.You have a right to ensure they continue in pursuing their common law duty of care, and a right to discuss with them, and talk to them, and help them even.
: In other words those who can, cant because others wont.
No, not at all, because socialism won't happen until we actually have the functioning willingness to do the things necessary to perpeutaute it.
: They dont all have it if some find their influence 'more equal than others' due to ganglike support for their ends.
But without money, and without control on access to material goods, they cannot gain more than others, and they would have to institute such controls, against an unwilling population thats juyst fought a revolution to abolish them...
: 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.
Exactly, each one of us is specifically objective, and our subjective character is part of our objective being, thus only individual subjects can delineate the actual needs of individual subjects.
: 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.
1:No, in medical examination is an abstraction, a general premise, and in medicine all they can give you is exist, but living (which includes running, jumping fighting and fucking) we cannot give an objective definition.
2: We don't need to establish such a comprimise.
: 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.
Thats the point, everyone is reasonable, I trust myself, tehrefore I trust others.
: 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.
1:They're a wanker for using social resources and witholding them for no good reason.
2:Actually, Locke held that we don't own ourselves, ebcause we didn't make ourselves- factual point aside (I was surpised to hear that argument t'other day) whilst they own themselves, likewise otehrs do too, and he should respect that when using their produce given freely for social use.
3:Value/preference decisions that aren't theirs to make.
: 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!!
Of course a person may produce especially for friends and familly, small items, etc. personal work, but if a person is a toy maker, then they can't go around deciding who gets toys and who not.
: You are not them. They are not you. They are not eachother.
No, but I trust me, you trust you, and they trust themselves, so if we all trust each otehr, then thats allright, because if I can't trust them, then I can't trust you, and I can't trust myself- certainly, I can't know myself anymore than I know another, I cannot see my unconscious, guess what i would do ih certain circumstances I have never encountered before, I often surprise myself.
: 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.
Exactly, but each person, each subject, complete with desires, is unique, so we cannot set a hard and fast objective stadard for peanut butter allocation, without abstraction.
: 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.
Their disatiscation usually comes from an incomprehension that work can be enjoyable for its own sake, or that humans will work without compulsion- many work today without owning their produce, why canot that be extended so that they can at least live well, and gain from that system?
