Re: What do workers compete for?

royls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

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

But I *thought* we were talking about the Dutch
creating land.

> 
>>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.
> 
> 

Well, I remain unconvinced of *that*, anyway.

Even the Amerinds practiced controlled burns on
prairie  ecosystems , yadda yadda. You and I
have been here before.

Okay - that would be the point of seperation, I think.
That's clearer.

>>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.
> 
> 

Okay - I reread back up the chain.

>>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


--
Les Cargill