: 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.
You have a right to prevent them poisoning you in the first place, through proper public regulation...
: Twenty years later 'just' becomes past. The unwilling segment may the be a minority.
Then it will fail. Such is the price of people's freedom, but I suspect that strong cultural traditions would mean people wouldn't ever put up with it.
: 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!
Another way of putting it- requirements are to be guaged by actual reality, not by a set of standards raised above reality. See my other Yacht post.
: Reductionism. Life signs / no life signs.
Not useful information- we have life-signs in persistant vegitative states, doesn't mean that the nutrition required to sustain that is the nutrition required for *living*.
: An assumption not held up by evidences of unreasoning behaviour.
Most unreasonable behaviour can be seen to ahve an ultimately reasonable cause, plus reason is a quality that comes from lived structures, etc. In a reasonable society, people are more likely to be reasonable.
: 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.
OK, but should a toy maker who doesn't like Black people be allowed to enact such racism? If they are the communities toy maker, producing to satisfy the demand of teh community, then they should make their work freely avaliable to all, if they want to, in their spare time, as a hobby, make toys...
: People who trust themselves are not therefore trustworthy (consistent in word and deed). Many poeple explicitly dont trust themselves even.
Perhaps they've not been given teh *opportunity* to learn to turst themself.
: Doesnt follow eachother. If you cant trust them it doesn't mean you cannot trust yourself.
Why? If I don't think every other human being is capable of rational and sensible decision making, why should I assume I am different?
: 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.
No, I suspect don't all I know is my own history, and my own memories, retroactively contruscting a model of self as I would with strangers.
: 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.
Most peopel I know see work as something aside from their won values, as something seperate from their "real" life, as a barrier and condition upon being able to pursue their own goals. If someone wants to make toys for friends, well and good, but if someone agrees to produce toys for the community, then there can be no exceptions.