Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato
No, I don't.
|
Yes, you do, actually.
Quote:
|
I neither gave you ideas, wrote not a single word for it, nor typed it, nor did anything else which created it.
|
As we were having conversations towards the end of my writing it, you did give me ideas. You also helped me survive, by contributing to the operation of the society that supported me. I'll agree that your contribution was minimal. Certainly there were other people who contributed much more than you did, myself being at the top of the list -- I did more on it than anyone else did. But nonetheless, it was a collective effort, not an individual one. And I would say writing a book comes closer to being an individual effort than most other endeavors.
Also, very few people will ever read it unless and until it is not only written but published. Who contributes to the publication of the book? Me, obviously -- it couldn't be published without being written -- but also the publishing company. Well, what is the publishing company? A corporation with employees. And the publishing company will, once the book is edited and certain decisions made regarding print run, cover art, etc., hire a printer to physically produce the copies, and a distributor to market it to bookstores and on the Internet, unless it's big enough to do these things itself. Thus, there are going to be a lot of people who contribute to the book's being available to the public, and to it making money.
Who gets the money that it makes? How is that money divided up? Is there some formula that is used, so that we say, "well, the author contributed X% to the production, while the editor contributed Y%, and Joe the printer operator contributed Z%, but Sam the truck driver also contributed AA%, so that's how we'll divide up the proceeds"? Of course not. There are legal documents that spell out who gets what from this collective effort at producing wealth. The editor, Sam the truck driver, and Joe the printer operator all get their salaries. I get my royalties. My agent gets his percentage. And everything left over after those expenses (if any) goes to the stockholders of the publishing company, who in fact contributed no labor whatsoever to the production of this wealth (unless they also hold jobs at the publishing company, and even then that's not why they receive this share), but merely are in a position of ownership.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. All wealth is produced collectively, by groups of people, and the wealth is divided up according to agreements and laws, with no necessary relationship to anything real about who contributes what.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Second sentence is true. First sentence is false. First sentence does not follow logically from second. Point addressed.
Quote:
|
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?
|
That I have never had an original thought on my own is untrue but that it is necessary for acceptance of my argument is also untrue.
That every action I undertake for which someone else pays me is an action dependent on others, and that I am unable to act on my own, is true. I lack the capital property necessary to allow my actions to produce wealth on their own. I must work in cooperation with others who do possess that capital property. Usually, I must also work in cooperation with others who possess skills I do not, or because the work is more than one person can handle.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Have you ever held a regular job, in which you were paid a wage or a salary?
Quote:
|
What does it mean to "own" someone else? What would be the defining characteristic(s) of "owning" someone?
|
Being able to do with that person what you may do with any other property, especially any living property such as a domesticated animal. If you own a horse, for example, you may force the horse to work at your will, on anything you desire without legal limit, you may sell the horse, you may kill the horse. Slave owners could also force their slaves to work at whatever they desired without legal limit, they could sell their slaves, and they could kill their slaves. Slaves were, legally, domesticated animals.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Humans without these things would not be human. As there can be no human beings without these things, the statement that such creatures would not be civilized becomes meaningless. Manual dexterity is a physical characteristic bestowed by our genes, and cooked food, language, and tools were technologies we possessed from the moment the first true human being was born, between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. They are not artifacts of civilization.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Do you believe we were "made"?
Seems to me that this kind of flexibility and adaptability are necessary consequences of high intelligence.