What the... ! Where did you get that idea? Your argument appears to be, "If it benefits society, then it's okay." I showed you where that logic can lead. You claim that which benefits society is advantageous to all, yet clearly it isn't. Now, instead of supporting your position, you make death defying leaps to conclusions. Fascinating.

The difference is I do not advocate infringing on human rights, while Hitler certainly did. You're comparing apples and oranges.

How so? Imagine if we took away all the governement factors that benefit our society, do you think our economy or general health or basically anything else would still be doing well after a while?

You made a leap from governement help in education and healthcare to exterminating the jews. I'm not the one taking leaps.

__________________
When WW2 had ended everyone joined the resistance.

Does your definition of human rights include the right to keep what you earn? That is, do all humans have the right to keep what they earn?
I gave you a how-so: what was advantageous for German society wasn't advantageous for Jews. I gave you another one before that: what is advantageous to society (according to you), isn't advantageous to those who have to pay for it.
No, I made the hop from "what is beneficial to society is good" to "what is beneficial for German society is not good for Jews". Not much of a leap at all.

These are the four points raised, as a "good idea", in the OP:

1) making sure all in the nation have food
2) making sure all in the nation have shelter
3) making sure all in the nation have medical care
4) making sure all in the nation have education

How should the government go about ensuring that all US citizens have those things? There are over 300,000,000 people in those country. Even community college tuitions would be astronomical...

Like I said, it's easy for a person to say that something should be done when that person has absolutely no intention of suggesting how it should be done...

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.

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.

And yet none of those individual people produced anything entirely by themselves with no contribution from anyone else.

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.

Such that the government owns the individual in the same way a slaveowner owned a slave? No.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

The pueblos, the Iroquois villages, and so on are not what would usually be considered "cities." They were villages. The really important line had been crossed, in that the Indians no longer depended on foraging and hunting, but they were not quite there yet. Their institutions and practices also showed this transitional quality; for example, the Iroquois practiced communal land ownership even though they were farming rather than foraging. Civilized communities generally divided land up into private ownership, at least de facto if not de jure.

Tenochtitlan was a city. Thus, the Aztec were civilized. The Iroquois were not, but they were protocivilized.

Not necessarily. Humans are a resilient species, capable of operating outside any narrow genetically-defined bounds. (BTW 7,000 years is only about 350 generations at the most, not 1,000. Nobody has children at the age of 7.) We can function in a civilization, but we still feel the pull of the primal arrangements. We tend to form small communities of people we trust, like, and/or are related to, within our civilized larger communities; we trust the leadership within those micro-communities in ways we never trust the formal government; and within those micro-communities we tend to resurrect the old economy of sharing (as we do in families) rather than the newer trade-based economy.

It's natural to feel a wistful desire to return to our precivilized roots, but it's not possible to do that any more.

we don't do a very good job? How so?

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

whats also being forgot or overlooked, is the 10% prinicpal....

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
What behavior is appropriate to life in cities?
Huh. Not precivilized, but not civilized. Would that be post-precivilized?
Ahhh, I see. So we should've begun with your definition of "city". So, what is a "city"?
Usually, or always? Is this a requirement of societies in order to be "civilized"?
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?

No it doesn't. Because the biggest factor enabling you to earn money is society (=the effort of others). You and me owe our wealth to society, not just to ourselves.

Actually I think that it is also advantageous to those who have to pay for it. I think that employers greatly benefit from the well-educated healthy people working for them.

This discussion is about food, shelter, healthcare and education not about ethnic cleansing. Can't you see they are totally different things, in that one is morally wrong for most people and the other isn't?

__________________
When WW2 had ended everyone joined the resistance.

The govt would do it by raising taxes on the rich, and then forcing everyone to a minimum standard of these things. The rich would not be allowed to use private healthcare, or gourmet food, or big houses, or ivy league education. Everyone would be reduced to a common denominator. Then there would be no incentive to succeed, and so wed end up a third world country. Yay.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I see. So, you're a communist?
I'm sure they do, too. Are you arguing there would be no healhty, educated people unless employers paid to educate them and keep them healthy?
I can see that. Can you see that, "What is good for society is advantageous to everyone." is not a true statement?

Where does it say that?

__________________
When WW2 had ended everyone joined the resistance.

What It? I just stated my opinion of how the govt would provide all these things. Hillarys plan for health has a rule which will make it criminal to own private health insurance. Canada has laws which make it criminal to get private healthcare, for example. This can be extended to food, shelter, and education.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Exactly.

I honestly don't think that's where libs want to take us with their ideas.

The problem is they're too fucking stupid to realize that being a third world country is exactly where we'll end up if we follow their plan...

Yes, you do, actually.

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.

Second sentence is true. First sentence is false. First sentence does not follow logically from second. Point addressed.