: I am not involved in the production of ice creams now, and i wouldnt be involved in socialism either.
You would be, beause you'd have an interest in dairy production, and in seeing how much was being used- plus you are involved if you buy one.
: Gains are meted out by vote, now rule can enforce that the 'needy' (itself a subjective valuation)
Indeed, it is subjective, but thats why each subject announces their needs via a vote, or via a request to the producers.
:get more, the 'policeman' in the hope that poeple will vote this way. Social democracy cannot gaurantee this, or even see it become more 'egalitarian'.
That is a model of representative democracy, nor direct democracy.
: Objective standards are necessary. subjectivism is the start of a long slide to all sorts of horrors.
No, we can't have 'objective' standards, for one thing, their not scientific,and impossible to arrive at in anything other than the concrete realisation of multiple subjectivities.
: 'need' if not defined objectively is meaningless.
And objective need is found in subjective pronouncement of it, hence direct democracy.
:It also makes need the basis and motivation of life.
Nope, thd idea is to escape need, and make need a secondary activity to art and beuaty.
:people who have needs get more, poeple without needs might develop them. Hoping that people will all bne jolly decent and honest is....just hoping. A gamble I would not like to take. With a new structure comes new problems.
Everyone has needs, and its up to everyone to decide what they need- no-one needs three and a half million jars of peanut butter.
: Sounds like politics and a great conduit for empire building.
Without advantage to be gained from it? Surely you don't believe that?
: They would have the same competition for limited resources as any system. Priorities would need resolution, many would defend and build 'their side'. conflict.
But its not a resource allocation problem, capitalist structures continually try and push budgest down, regardless.
: In what way is selling cigarettes like giving poison to child murderers?
Its a breach of the common law duty of care, its knowingly passing on dangerous goods.
: Its an opinion ("i do not believe") not a con.
Erm, no, it is a statement of factual interpretation, its a scientific utterance, and one made in the knowlegde that nicotine is addictive.
:if someone says "i do not believe that screwdrivers in eyes are harmful" I would not be misled, I would be able to judge the sentence as an opinion - false at that.
And you would think that person a liar flying the face of sound evidence, specifically if you found documents belonging to them saying 'a scredriver in the eye is really dangerous'.
: Yes they are crap(US) but other firms are crap about things they should be proud of too. Its because being honest in business gets you heaps of hateful bile in the press.
Actually, one quote, and this will amuse you, I say t'other day, states 'if UC had genuinely and humanely offered money to help the victims of the disaster they would have faced a law-suit from their shareholders for inapropraite handling of funds' - or words to that effect(Something to do with being a public company). So that explains much.