: You have a right to ensure they continue in pursuing their common law duty of care, and a right to discuss with them, and talk to them, and help them even.
The first isnt affected (if they poison they contravine), the second 'right' does not oblige them to listen, it wouldnt be good business for them to not do so, but they are not obliged to listen to me.
: No, not at all, because socialism won't happen until we actually have the functioning willingness to do the things necessary to perpeutaute it.
One of the reasons it hasnt and wont happen well put.
: But without money, and without control on access to material goods, they cannot gain more than others, and they would have to institute such controls, against an unwilling population thats juyst fought a revolution to abolish them...
Twenty years later 'just' becomes past. The unwilling segment may the be a minority.
: Exactly, each one of us is specifically objective, and our subjective character is part of our objective being, thus only individual subjects can delineate the actual needs of individual subjects.
No, an individual can state requirement for a yacht as need, and be shown to be wrong when he fails to develop 'malnutrition' upon not getting it. What he actually needs for a goal is not whatever he thinks he needs for that goal. "Im hungry, I need nutrition, I think I need spanners"....wrong!
1:No, in medical examination is an abstraction, a general premise, and in medicine all they can give you is exist, but living (which includes running, jumping fighting and fucking) we cannot give an objective definition.
Reductionism. Life signs / no life signs.
: Thats the point, everyone is reasonable, I trust myself, tehrefore I trust others.
An assumption not held up by evidences of unreasoning behaviour.
: Of course a person may produce especially for friends and familly, small items, etc. personal work, but if a person is a toy maker, then they can't go around deciding who gets toys and who not.
To use it - "Then why would a person become a toy maker?" This bars all toymakers who wish to produce toys for chosen valued poeple from having the freedom to produce for *his* values, and reduces him to having to produce for the sake of others' values or not at all. Some choice.
: No, but I trust me, you trust you, and they trust themselves, so if we all trust each otehr, then thats allright
People who trust themselves are not therefore trustworthy (consistent in word and deed). Many poeple explicitly dont trust themselves even.
: because if I can't trust them, then I can't trust you, and I can't trust myself-
Doesnt follow eachother. If you cant trust them it doesn't mean you cannot trust yourself.
: certainly, I can't know myself anymore than I know another, I cannot see my unconscious, guess what i would do ih certain circumstances I have never encountered before, I often surprise myself.
You know yourself more than you know others. You cannot even access their consciousness, nor experience them 24 hrs a day. Even given the dubious theory of self, you can and do know yourself more than them.
: Their disatiscation usually comes from an incomprehension that work can be enjoyable for its own sake, or that humans will work without compulsion- many work today without owning their produce, why canot that be extended so that they can at least live well, and gain from that system?
I can see why you would need to find that to be the source of their incomprehension. When I follow a thread, seeing the bits where people talk at cross purposes I can perceive areas where both posters are missing eachothers points and comprehensions. People in my experience dont think of work as a necessary evil, but as a necessary means to achieve the results *they* specifically desire. Compulsion by others is not the issue, it is the ability to work toward personal goals - and that is why they ask, in essence, why would I work for that bozo, why cant I work toward my own values and let him do likewise - eg the toymaker.