- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Knockle Shuffle.

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on August 07, 1999 at 17:44:15:

In Reply to: hmmmm. You need standards. posted by Gee on August 06, 1999 at 18:03:08:

: Wrong end of it.

Still an interest.

: 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.

Why worry about cons, trust them. Look, how can anyone objectively tell me when I need a swift visit to Mrs. Palm and her five beautiful daughters- I am teh only one who can say that, my subjective appreciation is the objective fact.

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

Not representatives, admistrators, officials who carry out the orders given and decided by the others collectively. We've been through this one before.

: 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.

But need is a function of subjectivity, unless you revert to some dehumanising model in which humans are simply input out put parts of a greater process. Even gravity is known subjectively, as part ofan intersubjective appreciation of the world, we cannot know it beyond our own subjectivities.

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

Why? I want=I need. Simple as that.

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

Well, as a last resort, we can look to a vote and see who has the majority of people thinking they are right, or we can debate the prpopositions and look for contradictions in teh argument.

: 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.

A beautiful bridge, a beatiful chemcal plant, etc.

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

What would they do with them? I fail, beyond some sort of artistic performativity, to see a use. I mean particulalry, that an individual canot physically use that many jars.

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

This asumes that power is a transcendental drive, and one that exists even if dicvorced from material beneifts. I don't agree,I think power is largely connected with material gain, and is a function of culture.

: The dynamic of allocating resources remains in effect regardless.

You're missing the point- capitalism tries to push down budgets, regardless of allocation or availablity.

: 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.

Irf I sold glue to someone I knew was going to use it for sniffing, or give it to kids for sniffing, I'd be failing my common law duty of care.

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

Those words were uttered to a Congressional hearing, by the Directors of teh tobbacco companies, a few days later, a secret document from one firm reading something like 'we are in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive susbtance' came to light.

: 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.")

Considering he was unable to stop once he started, you can say he's not to blame.

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

Apparently not in public limitted companies, if they were a different sort of firm, the shareholders could decide, but coz of their legal status etc....I'm not up on US business law...

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup