http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society

I was simply clearing up the vernacular being used.

The issue here is that you are being inaccurate on so many levels, from your usage of terminology to the links you are trying to make.

The "Robinson Crusue" point, as you put it - simply states in black and white, and in an irrefutable manner that strictly speaking, wealth is not necessarily created in a group setting. One individual can in fact create wealth. Ergo, other members of a society may - but do not necessarily - play a part.

However, you should have also noted before sticking on this point that I also clarified that greater wealth can be created by group co-operation. This was defining a fine point of terminology and usage so we were on the same page.

Now, are you going to keep swinging at straw men, incorrectly using terminology and making wild claims that the alternative to your Socialist plan for society is Somalia - or are you going to step up and present an actual logical argument?

I am beginning to doubt you can, since you seem to be trying to base your first principles on easily debunked premises.

I will give you a hint: to go anywhere with this line of reasoning you appear to be pursuing, you need to re-arrange your budding argument away from the "society is needed to create wealth" to "most of the wealth we currently enjoy is created in the context of a modern society".

Now, start over, examine the clear cut difference in the lines of reasoning and try again.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)