- Capitalism and Alternatives -

hmmmm. You need standards.

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on August 06, 1999 at 18:03:08:

In Reply to: Votes are needs. posted by Red Deathy on August 06, 1999 at 15:49:12:

: 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.

Wrong end of it.

: Indeed, it is subjective, but thats why each subject announces their needs via a vote, or via a request to the producers.

Dubious. "Look Im all messed inside man, I need all this stuff - its my state of mind, its like crazy man!" Subjective = possible con, no objective standards and enforcement = con men and the conned.

: That is a model of representative democracy, nor direct democracy.

You have spoken about representatives. "...that 'elected' officials would not be in charge, merely appointed...."

: 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.

Objectivity as such can be 'scientific'. ie gravity is not subject to whim - it is what it is whether we like it or not. We are subject to the degree to which we understand it. So 'need' requires the same scrutiny and understanding as gravity to be of use as a guide to decision making on resources. Otherwise anything is/isnt a need.

: And objective need is found in subjective pronouncement of it, hence direct democracy.

Direct Democrat 1: "look, im needy dude, i'll have the stuff you made"
Direct Democrat 2: "nonsense, youre freeloading"

Who is right? Without any objective standard there is no answer, just who is the stronger thats all.

: Nope, thd idea is to escape need, and make need a secondary activity to art and beuaty.

Art and beauty expressed in technology, a new bridge, a new chemical formulation, a new farming technique I hope. Otherwise people will read poems while dying.

: 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.

Why not? You see - you must accept a set of objectively demonstrable standards

: Without advantage to be gained from it? Surely you don't believe that?

What lack of advantage - power is the main one. Willing followers, your decision supported by your gang etc.

: But its not a resource allocation problem, capitalist structures continually try and push budgest down, regardless.

The dynamic of allocating resources remains in effect regardless.

: Its a breach of the common law duty of care, its knowingly passing on dangerous goods.

It is not anything like giving poison to child killers. If it is thn selling glue to anyone (coz it might get in the wrong hands you know) is as evil. Screwdrivers are dangerous goods, garden pools are, electrical kitchen stuff is.

: Erm, no, it is a statement of factual interpretation, its a scientific utterance, and one made in the knowlegde that nicotine is addictive.

Who by then. Quotations belong in context - the words themselves present a mere opinion.

: 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'.

then here is the misrepresentation case. Shame the media focusses on poor mr Smiths lungs ("I only smoked 50 a day for 40 years, who can blame me? it was the advertising.")

: 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.

The owners decide how their funds are to be used. Its up to them to be 'humane'

Likewise in *any* ownership, including communal.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup