Originally Posted By: sinij
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?


You could pick many benchmarks. What one has today vs what one had yesterday. If you measure wealth as something solely to be compared to against other people, I can see why you argue about it the way that you do. But wealth can be any sort of useful resource. Ex: Robinson Crusoe stumbles across a pile of fallen coconuts, and the fallen coconuts have not gone bad and turned into poison. He could be said to be much wealthier than he had been the day before. Ex2: Robinson Crusoe actually builds a still, and intentionally makes the coconut milk go bad in a manner designed to produce alcohol and now has a refreshing nightcap to provide a little luxury to his solitude.

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