Holy cow sinij, it is just difficult when you pile up 1000 inaccurate assumptions to take time to dispel every single one.

First of all, I did not confuse them. You do not apparently understand their relevance is the problem. You cannot prove that society must be present, because you cannot prove that other people will even necessarily be around.

Plus just because other people WISH to interfere with you in a violent manner, does not make them capable of doing so. Please Think your arguments through please.

You cannot prove that a society is needed for wealth creation unless you can clear the following hurdles:

1) That other people are inherently needed. This is patently false, and self-evident.

2) That other people are even present. Unless you can prove that a guy hidden away in the mountains cannot create wealth for himself, your argument falls apart.

I understand what you are trying to say in a general sense, but the fine points of what you are trying to pass for logic just does not hold up. You can say a cat is a dog if you want, but it doesnt make it true.

Also, how have I dismissed the negative effects of human interaction? I addressed that. Read closer.

You try to say "Your confusion seems to be based on the fact that you seem to completely dismiss negative effects of human interaction. You argue that since individual can create wealth in perfect isolation (I do not dispute this), you can scale it up to any size and proportionally scale wealth creation (I dispute this part) without any regards to interaction of these individuals."

When the previous quotes from me

a)"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."

b) "A well ordered society can in fact provide a beneficial ENVIRONMENT that is more suited to creating additional wealth. You would be correct to say that it is more conducive to create certain types of wealth in the USA than in say, Somalia."

c) "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"."

These quotes and others prove that I had not dismissed the negative effects of human interaction, and you either are simply not reading what I wrote or are trying to call a cat a dog.

Additionally your admission thus : "You argue that since individual can create wealth in perfect isolation (I do not dispute this)" is also an admission that you can create wealth in a vaccum.

And lastly, in your statement : "In very simplified terms, if multiple individuals are present, they need to show basic level of cooperation in order for any of them to create any wealth." you are technically correct. HOWEVER: It is important to identify and separate types of co-operation. The issue you seem to be getting at is security co-operation. Security co-operation does not imply a greater economic co-operation. Also, co-operation can be coerced.

So are you ever going to lay out a clear argument in favor of your policies? So far all you have done is try (unsuccessfully ) to nitpick semantics.

You have also focused on this particular point without addressing the other ways I debunked your thought train as well. A thought train that, I might add, has yet to even leave the station.

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