: The desire for wood products may be infinite. Objective need is measurable. The sustainability of the forest is also measurable. Balancing objective needs with sustainable resources is part of a social process in which personal "desires" must be sacrificed in the face of hard, natural reality...like wanting more sun at the North Pole.Right - now this requires 'experts' and expert evidence and the correct objective rational interpretation of said evidence. then *regardless* of democratic wishes there would need to be a means to enforcing whichever policy comes out of the described process.
Interestingly you are in part agreeing with me, in a discussion I once had with RD. I also suggested that in socialism 'needs' must have some base in objective truth lest a fellow voting for his third yacht is given as much 'airtime' as one voting for his first loaf of bread. I further suggested that such needs require authority to see their objectivity through the morass of populism which can constitute unlimited democracy. When you add the question of sustainable resources you require still more authority to have people observe them.
In each case said authority can lead to tyranny.
: By who? A band of capitalists that want to rape the forests for money?
Or the remains of band slaughtered by the invaders, wise in hindsight? Tough call really (I mean it, no irony)
: People will respond as people.
See the above for reasons why authority will be necessary.
: bill:
: Sounds like a spoiled child. How do You handle a spoiled child?
Good question - how indeed? Does one over rule them and enforce that with authority?
: The measurement of who produces more and who less is part of the capitalist mentality that is preoccupied with deriving profit from the labor of others. As long as the money symbol rules, such considerations remain paramount.
You spoke earlier about objective truths - for you to consider them true with regard to the trees and baots, you necessarily consider an obkective measure of the value of doctors or barn builders as against second-rate table makers or third rate entertainers - in other words the 'problem' of some people being more useful to others (which reaches a degree of resolution in capitalism as people express their judgement by exchanging something of value for what they find useful) is as much an issue under socialism.
: The 'agreed' presumably means "agreed".
Does it? If 100 poeple want you to do something and you dont wish to do it, you might agree lest you are thrown out by those people. Is that agreeing?
: : : Workers of the World Unite!
: : You have only so many variations on this quotation!!
