Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
That isn't evidence in favor of your position. You would need to show that I wrote my book with literally zero help from you, direct or indirect. You would need to show that you did absolutely nothing that in any way, shape, or form, however minor, helped me to write a single word.
|
No, I don't. Your argument is, "Solitary effort, and wealth produced by one individual alone, is an illusion. It is always a collective effort." I only need prove I didn't do anything to create your wealth. Assuming, for purposes of discussion, we limit your wealth to your book I merely need to prove I've expended no effort to write your book. I didn't. I neither gave you ideas, wrote not a single word for it, nor typed it, nor did anything else which created it.
Quote:
|
During the time I was writing it, did we never have a single conversation, so that I never bounced any ideas off you? Did you not, yourself, work at anything, or spend money on anything, or pay any taxes? Of course you contributed! Not as much as I did, and by the laws of our society the direct rewards once the sucker gets published go to me, my publisher, and my agent and not to you, but that doesn't mean you had no bearing on it at all.
|
Actually, by the laws of our society, if I've contributed to your book at all you need to give me credit. If you've used something I wrote, then you need to include me in your list of sources. If you've paraphrased anything I wrote, and you don't give me credit, you are guilty of plagiarism. I charge $3k for each reference. When can I expect my check?
In fact, given your fervent desire to give me credit, I think I'll print this thread out and present it to my lawyer so he can ensure I get my just rewards.
Quote:
|
And yet none of those individual people produced anything entirely by themselves with no contribution from anyone else.
|
Doesn't address the point. The point is that wealth begins, and ends, with individual effort. Were there no individual effort, there would be no wealth.
You're confusing effort with either incidental by-products, or traded quid pro quo. They are not the same. Effort is the product of an individual - even if that individual is in a group. Anyone who's been involved in group projects where at least one individual fails to produce any effort is aware of this fact. You may be able to exist (parasitically) by living off the individual effort of others, but that really would be an unwise choice. You would not be creating any wealth, you would be taking the wealth created by others through their own individual effort.
To accept your argument we would also have to accept that you've never had an original thought of your own, and that every action you undertake for which someone else pays you for is action dependent upon others - that you are incapable of acting on your own. Are these true? Are you completely devoid of original thought and independent action?
Quote:
|
You ARE being productive just by existing in a society; of course, most people do rather more than that, and so are more productive than this minimal example.
|
Not everyone is. Children and comatose people are just two off the top of my mind who are not being productive just by existing in a society.
But this is the crux of your argument? That simply by existing in society one is productive?
Quote:
|
Such that the government owns the individual in the same way a slaveowner owned a slave? No.
|
Such that the government has the power to force the individual to act, isn't there a power imbalance between the government and any individual under its purview?
Quote:
Not at all. You're probably familiar with Henry Ford's statement, "People can have the Model T in any color, as long as it's black." From this we may deduce that all Model T Fords were black. Does it follow that Barack Obama, who is black, is a Model T Ford?
For some quality B to be a defining characteristic of condition A, two statements must be true: "All A are B," and "Everything B is A." With respect to slavery, you have identified a characteristic for which "All A are B" is true, but "Everything B is A" is false." As such, it is not a defining characteristic.
|
If there are other things, beside slavery, which have the characteristic of working for the benefit of others I would like to know what they are.
What does it mean to "own" someone else? What would be the defining characteristic(s) of "owning" someone?
Quote:
No, but humans can be said to be uncivilized with them, and for most of our time on this planet they were.
(Humans do not even exist without them.)
|
Okay, so humans could not be said to be civilized without eating cooked food, using language and tools, improving tools, or manual dexterity. Meaning, humans without these things would not be civilized. Therefore, if humans did not have these things, regardless of whether they had any of the other criteria you listed, they would not be civilized. Therefore, having these things is required of civilization. A society without them would not be civilized. Therefore, these things are hallmarks, necessary characteristics, of civilization.
Quote:
|
Behavior appropriate to life in cities, or in a society that includes cities. (It's also sometimes used to mean "polite behavior" but that's not what I mean.)
|
What behavior is appropriate to life in cities?
Quote:
|
Almost all Indians had agriculture, yes. That means they were no longer precivilized and were on their way to being civilized. There were a few exceptions.
|
Huh. Not precivilized, but not civilized. Would that be post-precivilized?
Quote:
|
The pueblos, the Iroquois villages, and so on are not what would usually be considered "cities." They were villages.
|
Ahhh, I see. So we should've begun with your definition of "city". So, what is a "city"?
Quote:
|
Civilized communities generally divided land up into private ownership, at least de facto if not de jure.
|
Usually, or always? Is this a requirement of societies in order to be "civilized"?
Quote:
|
Not necessarily. Humans are a resilient species, capable of operating outside any narrow genetically-defined bounds.
|
Interesting. How'd we get that way? How is it we're so able to exist within such broad boundaries, yet other species are not? Were we just made that way?