: SDF: Sorry if I'm being rude
I imagine I am too, on occasion.
: SDF: Have any of my sentences incurred bruises? Fractures? Dislocations? Sticks and stones...
...but some words make it difficult to communicate effectively.
: SDF: I did, and it led me to the conclusion that you're indeed secretly a collectivist, that you really have no rebuttal against Red Deathy's notion that "Considering that all wealth creation is necessarilly a social act, a collective effort, we are collectively responsible for what happens with that wealth."
My answer being that collective effort can be viewed in individual terms and that the inventor of a motor has greater input (as he is unique) that the one who hammers it together (because many people could do that) - scarcity of ability, perhaps.
: SDF: Sure it's a joke, but what I really think is that you are so concerned with the sum total of wealth because you want to collectivize your wealth with those of the rich, thus your constant arguing that you get rich when the rich get richer. If you really believed that such fabulous sums as they own were theirs and only theirs you wouldn't give a damn that they had them.
I think youve misinterpreted. I dont want a wealthy persons money. its interesting to find out how they got it. It may be worth emulating such, but I dont want what is theirs (except by trade)
: And how do you know I'm an advocate of zero-sum economics?
I dont, I didnt imagine you would be.
: I read your argument, over and over again, about everyone gaining in wealth. Why should you give a damn if the rich get richer, if you get yours?
: SDF: I see. Where is the counterevidence to show that my above conclusion is false? Supply a URL please.
Rather than trawl through my million past posts I'll explain. I do care about my wealth, I do care about other people who lack such. The two are not mutually exclusive. Im interested in why people dont rush to help (read my long ago post of on why people holiday sooner than give to charity, or my post on "help at any cost").
: : Wrong, you can ride a bike, jog or drive a truck if you want.
: SDF: Thanks for your permission.
The point being, you need no ones permission, and neither do the car drivers.
: You claim you don't have any interest in sharing any sort of collective anything with me; therefore your thoughts are your business. But let's get into this presumption that my goal is to "reduce the sum of global wealth". Where does it come from?
If you life intent is simply to do what you wish, without endeavouring to impose your will upon others then that is fine, whether you care for an opinion or not. If you are about reducing what you appear to see as desecration and look for sustainability then unless you have a nother method this will result in a global reduction in wealth (as currectly measured)
On the second law of thermodynamics, and entropy. Simon does not refute it. I think he did not consider it because of the time factor. Satellites may well use up whatever materials. Eating and breathing does. More activity and more use of things leads to increasing entropy.
the difference in opinion is either practical (not for millions of years and who knows where we'll be then) or quasi-philosophical (why would anyone with the gift of life live it with the sole goal being to make as smaller dent as possible on the universe)