: And communal ownership is precisely the same 'unearned' (by your very particular definition) ownership, and is called equitable because there is straight 'all this divided by all them' calculation.
Actually, there is not:
1:Social production begets social reward, i.e. everyone is involved in teh production process.
2:Gains are meted out according to need, not according to property ownership.
: Its not that different - just the way the split is decided. In capitalism by ability to exchange value, by socialism by ability to...well - exist.
No, by need, and Capitalism doesn't reward ability to exchange value, it rewards ownership of money.
: Im glad you added the word 'probably' there, it being not subject to 'proof' until practiced and empire building being quite possible under any model.
But the incentive (higher wages) is not there, nor is the particular culture...
: fascinating quality process - some people are better at some takss than others - we are not infinately interchangeable. even if we were theoretically able to be equally skilled (whic I reject) then we would never be after divergence in experience etc. Would it reflect esteem and who would 'put' them in such a position - I though you 'voted' for yourself not others?
But the point is that 'elected' officials would not be in charge, merely appointed to carry out the democratically arrived at decisions.
: the same threats posed by budgets are posed by resource allocations of any kind. The impetus to empire build has the same dynamic in socialism. To stop it you would have to employ mean to prune it.
No, because the imprerative to cut budgets at all costs is the cause, socialism woiuld not have the overiding imperatoive to cut budgets for cuttings sake.
: What I meant specifically is that UC couldnt not help in any true sense - even if they had $1billion spare and made Bhopal into an abundance paradise it would have been too late in the context of thousands dead.
Agreed- the Indian govt. wanted $3 billion- that would have at least paid for the medical bills and loss of Earnings.
: There comes a point where you just have say no. If you stuck a screwdriver into your eye would a) expect to see better, b) blame the toolmaker? In smoking would you a) expect to breathe better when 'the bleeding obvious' answer is that lungs are made for normal air and b) blame the company for any results.
If I give rat poisons, knowingly, to a child murderer, I am responsible- atm tobacco firms have managed to use lies, manipulative advertising, and pure fiscal might to avoid teh consequences of their actions- unlike Liberals, I do not hold the rational individual up as the mark of all morality...
: Any specific areas of cigarettes can be tackled under appropriate areas of fraudulent misrepresentation. in law (ideally) you dont look at how black poor Mr Smiths lungs are, but whether the company fraudulently (and with intent) misrepresented the product.
Which they have done 'I do not believe nicotine is addictive', slight misrepresentation there...
: behind the scenes deals no doubt. Typical in cases where one govt (US) doesnt need Indian votes and the other (Indian) doesnt fear a backlash from its well trained caste populous.
Well, indian politics is volatile, but also, they need the Petrochemical firms grace...apparently the government took a stack of flak for its handling of it..congress are out of power now...
: In the US a company is presumed guilty until proven innocent, whereupon they are just assumed to be 'suspicious'. hmmmm.
Companies have never really helped much on this matter- UC went round for the first few days saying MIC was just a strong Tear Gas (despite 8,000 dying in the first few days), and even now, they refuse to release toxicological information, claiming trade-secrets, leaving doctors in the dark as how to treat (random steroids, etc.).