: But ntot one that entitles me to 'have a say' in what they do, simply to choose whether or not to accept the offer.
No, it effects your life, what they do and how they do it (what if they used poisonous or substandard ingredients and you didn't know?).
: And any need (even palm based ones) can simply be claimed. In this socialism the claimant requires no evidence - simply 'feels' (how postmodernist) the need and makes the claim. Its so arbitrary and useless.
No, it is utterly definitive, because it is left to their own rational conciousness to decide such matters, utter responsibility, anything else would be abstraction (i.e. utterly unobjective) and a deferral of responsibility.
: Other people would be right to withold their productive effort from those who simply claim upon a dubious 'need'. In such a society it is those who stake a claim that get rewarded and those who hold back, who wish to conserve or plan that get least. A scrabble for goodies.
Why should people hold back? unless they actually want to, and unless their needs require them to hold back and get less.
: And said offcials can build popular support, gain a supportive gang etc etc. To imagine the people in those roles as being ones attracted to it by the tendency to straight trustworthy dealing is fantasy.
No, its not, because I don't think, unlike yourself, that power and glory are removed from material determination, specifically that without reward and material gain for such positions, no one would have any incentive to get together and try and dominate.
: I have explained that gravity is objective, the limitation is us - not gravities.
No, its not objective, or rather, it cannot be known objectively, so by definition objectivity does not enter rationally into human discourse, and it becomes irrational to seek an objective denotative utterance.
: Needs likewise are actual and objective - even if difficult to demonstrate. It isnt dehumanising to say that a person requires certain nutrition and shelter to remain alive.
But impossible to determine specifically, and individually, and thus becomes abstraction and thus subjective in extremis. Unless you weren prepared to test all people to discern their exact individual needs to exist (and then, comes the question of living, we may need certain nutrients to exist, but to live? Depends on what you mean live, thats a value call). To determine an exact quanta of material requirements is to machinise humans, and treat them as objects.
The only way short of a hyper-intensive medical examining apparatus, is to rely on the subjective values and needs of the subject.
:Without any standard whatsoever a person who comes and ask for some food has no more validity in his claim that one who demands a yacht, a beach hut and some ice cream. There are objective standards in reality, and people in general try to act in what they perceive them to be.
An egg and a slivce of meat contain the same nutritional value (imagine) which do we chose? The one we like more. To lack objective standards is not to lack a hierarchy of value, but to accept that such hierarchies are themselves human products, and thus subjective, and thus the product of discourse and debate.
: Direct Democrat 1: "look, im needy dude, i'll have the stuff you made"
: Direct Democrat 2: "Im not wasting my precious time supplying you with toys. I'll decide where my effort goes. Sod off."
Thats fair enough, if they doesn't want to make toys thats their call.
: The latter preferably. Imagine people taking a vote on how to install a power generator. A few engineers lead the arguments and build up to a vote. Of the 2 methods one is correct (it is the objectively 'right' way of doing it) and the other is wrong. The vot for the wrong and the generator blows up. reality wont listen to a vote. It simply is. Debate is important, but 'sight' and 'wrong' - especially in terms of choosing such courses of action are objective. Debate needs to uncover this, not simply form a majority opinion.
Democracy is not about determining right or wrong, but about dertimining wants, what people desire, democracy is about values.
: With this you are setting objective standards - scrutinizing the request and considering it in the light of reason and reality. Jolly good.
No, I'm simply stating a simple matter of possibility, they could try eat that much peanut butter, but they'd be sick- I'm just sure they can't do it.
: Whats to stop one gang gaining more? There is no enforcement. Strongest can win.
The fact that the vast majority won't let them, and they won't want to because of their cultural leanings and the laack of perceptable gain.
: Thats secondary (and very good when we go shopping for beans) - the major point is that resources must be allocated by people - and that creates said opportunity.
No, its primary under capitalism, which was my point, but whenever bureaucrats depend on their department size fo5r their income, they need to push for budgets, when they have no self interest in the matter, beyond doing it...
: Now you have to show intent. How about if you sell a car to someone who for all purposes seems ok, but then drives recklessly and dies?
Then if they seemed OK I'm in teh clear, but if they came in roaring drunk and I sold them a car- intent is not an issue, I just have to show reasonable care.
: If one person is able to stop (loads do every year) then why is he not? Stopping smoking is not only possible, its an actual experience for millions. Difficulty is no excuse. If you know its damaging you and then you continue to do it you are making a value choice.
It is very difficult, and as they say, tehre is no such thing as an ex addict- its made more difficult by a culture of smoking (i.e. all your friends do), and with an advertising industry encouraging it.