> Sorry, but this is quickly turning into a boring game of semantics.
> Labour,
> let me repeat, includes the knowledge of making those cuts. Labour
> includes
> intellectual work. Accusing me of relying on an 18th century definition
> was
> a cop out.
While we are on the subject of cop outs, I'll just note that you are
essentially including *everything* in labor.
What isn't labor?
-------------------------------
Land.
--------------------------------------
If "knowledge" and "intellectual" work is labor then certainly
"capital" involves labor, too.
-------------------------------------------
Bravo.
-------------------------------------------
Even "land", since it must be discovered and prepared for use,
involves labor.
------------------------------------------
Bravo.
------------------------------------------
Of course in over-defining it in this way - just as you do "scarcity"
btw - you end up not really saying anything of much significance and,
therefore...well...copping out.
-------------------------------------------
Of course in making yet another non sequitur the bravos have dissipated. I
haven't over-defined anything. If you'd care to read my response to Publius
you would see that by removing intellectual activity from labour doesn't
change a thing. You make arguments without defining anything. You brush
aside definitions without adressing them, without offering cogent premises
to convince one of changing their views. In short you're a yappy little dog,
with an annoying bark and absolutely no bite whatsoever. Come back when you
can figure out how to calculate a population density and when you can prove
that a finite planet can possess infinite resources, Faulty flag-waving
fweddy.
