Originally Posted By: Derid
If you allow a logical fallacy of that nature to stand, then presumption of the correctness of that fallacy can in turn be used to create an illogical case.


Spell it out for me again, I do not see logical fallacy in my argument.

Quote:
The concept of whether or not multiple people are, in the "strictest sense" required for wealth creation has powerful implications if extrapolated into a plausible scenario. As such, it is important to make sure someone misusing the terminology to misrepresent the concept is called out on it.


I personally don't agree with your argument that lone individual in perfect isolation can create wealth... wealth is a measure, if you have only one point, what do you measure it against, previous state? Even if I concede this point, how does it affect bigger argument? We established, and you agreed, that interaction is not all consensual and not all positive. So does it matter if single individual can or cannot create wealth, and if so does this wealth make a sound when it get bailed out, but nobody is there to cash in on it?

[Linked Image]