Re: What do workers compete for?

On Fri, 14 May 2004 05:12:45 GMT, Les Cargill
<lcargill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>royls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:28:59 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> <robert_kolker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>  
>>>royls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Dutch did not produce any land.  They dried out land that was
>>>>formerly under water.
>>>>
>>>>Stop lying about it.
>>>
>>>No lie.
>>  
>> Yes, actually, you did lie.
>>  
>>>They also had to desalinate the soil before anything would grow.
>>  
>> The soil that was already there.  Right.  Thank you for admitting that
>> you lied. 
>> 
>>>The reclaimed land was not fit as found.
>> 
>> The land that was reclaimed, not created.  Right.  Thank you for
>> admitting that you lied. 
>
>Your accusation uses a definition of "created" which is not
>reasonable in context.

Yes, it is, because it matches the relevant definition of "land" as
that which exists, but has not been created by human labor.

>The point is that creation is nothing more than the act
>of modifying something already there into something else.

Right.  But in order to rescue his false beliefs from their collision
with the truth, Robert has to escape the inescapable implications of
the economic concept of "land" as that which has _not_ been modified
by human labor.

>It is transformative, not ex nihilo.

Tell Robert.

>By using that as a standard, you have held Bob to an
>unreasonable standard and have comitted an error.
>Apparently for no good reason.

No.  It was he who committed the fallacy of equivocation.  I have
simply taken him to task for it.

>This is why people react to you as they react to you.

Cuz I don't let 'em get away with $#!+ like that?  Awww...

-- Roy L