>I expect I have not overlooked that there will not be class conflict. That is is not the only kind of irreconciable conflict. Very few of the disptes I dealw ith, except perhaps the employment ones, involve that sort of issue. Rather you have issues like: I was injured. You were negligent.
In a society where everyone is guaranteed economic security, apportioning blame is relevant only in the context of learning from the mistake. There is no conflict of interest, all parties would want to find out what happened and what needs to be done to prevent it happening again.
> You should have to pay me.
There is no money. What do you want, a pound of flesh?
> Or: you promised to deliver X and you didn't. Pay me. Etc.
Pay you for what? It is a mere inconvenience, what damage can you possibly have suffered?
> Anyway, even where there are no such clashes of interests, there will still be a proliferation of rules governing rather technical and specialized subjects, and these will require specilaized interpreters.
I expect you are correct about procedural rules. You may be right about the need for specialised interpreters too. But my point remains that this is simply a question of misunderstanding, it does not arise from divergent interests.
The point is that a socialist society such as the one envisaged is a co-operative one. The good of one is the good of the other and vice versa. This creates a completely different context than a market economy, where the best interests of the seller is impossible to reconcile with the best interests of the buyer.
>>"Courts" of a kind may still be necessary to determine facts as part of such a process, but in the absence of irreconcilable clashes of interests, it is possible for people and groups to resolve their differences by mutual agreement. With some help perhaps. Because it is no longer a win/lose dichotomy.
>>
>
>Sure there are winners and losers. We need a waste disposal plant. No one wants it located near them.
Oh I don't know. The sewerage disposal plant presumably produces fertilizer. The neighbour of the plant has easier access to this for his garden. No holding me back! But there's plenty to go around, so I won't begrudge you trekking a longer distance to get some. Or is this a nuclear waste disposal plant? In which case I imagine the resistance to having the waste disposed of anywhere is likely to lead to a decision not to create such waste in the first instance.
> The losers have to put it with it. We have to choose between more schools and better hospitals.
Why can't we have both? Surely it is in everyone's interest to put a high priority on health and education? In any case, this is not a relevant issue in this context. In a democratic society, economic priorities will be determined democratically.
> The losers are the ones who back the losing option. An inefficient enterprise has to be shut down. The workers get other jobs, but goi through serious dislocation. Don't be naive.
What is the nature of this "serious dislocation"? Why would they object to production being made more efficient?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas