That’s not what you said. You literally said wealth creation “is the production of things that people value.” You also said that “people” really just means one person. So why should it matter what the man was willing to give me for the ash? I produced something that people value. By your very definition I have created wealth.
I also think your false notion that a producer places zero value on what he himself produces leads you to other problems. It is simply not true that the worker at the rubber factory has no use for the rubber he makes. You might say the same thing about a farmer who “has no use” for the crops he grows. Even if we assume that the rubber worker never uses any rubber, in any form, in any capacity his entire life…and even if we assume that a farmer never uses any of the crops he grows, in any way, ever in his lifetime (for feed for animals or to consume himself)…saying they simply do not value what they have produced is completely false. Just because someone trades something away, it does not mean he places no value on it. It simply means he values what he has received more than what he gave away. This is completely different from saying something has no value.
If what you say is true, and “what is produced by an individual has no value to the individual”, then why would the individual make it at all? Obviously whatever is produced offers at least the value of whatever the man thinks he can trade it for…Unless your contention is that the rubber maker and the farmer do what they do for nothing more than the joy they get out of the process of doing it (e.g. a painter who paints and then throws his art in the trash.) If the man placed no value on the results of his production, why would he care if you stole it? Surely you would not suggest that a rubber maker or farmer would not bat an eye if you came and took everything that he produced. But why would he, if he placed no value on it?
By the same token, if you and I were walking down the street and someone handed me a flyer for a MADD seminar, and you took it from me without my permission, I would not care. Because I place virtually no value on it.
I think this is another part of your problem. It sounds like you’re under the impression that things have intrinsic value.
I suppose I would define wealth as a claim on resources (commodities, capital equipment, time, physical labor, etc) that have the potential to make the individual’s life easier, more comfortable or more enjoyable (i.e. “better”) than it would be in the absence of such things. Wealth is created when the claim of any one individual increases through fully voluntary human action or interaction. Again, if any part of the interaction is not voluntary, then there is no new wealth created, there is only existing wealth transferred (i.e. stolen). In other words, if I am better off, but only because someone else is worse off, then I haven’t created any new wealth. I have only stolen/transferred wealth that already existed. I am wealthier than I was before, but only because someone else is poorer than he was before. However, if all parties involved are better off, then new wealth has been created…because it would be impossible for each person to become wealthier unless more wealth exists than before.
The comment that started this part of the debate was here, when Charles Anthony proposed that wealth can be created through force. I stated this was false, here,and stated (among other clarifications) that wealth is only created through a mutually beneficial action and that otherwise it is simply transferred. This is where you joined the debate and claimed that wealth creation is nothing more than “the production of things that people value” and that just because a slave doesn’t value what you have forced him to do doesn’t mean you haven’t created wealth, here.
I do not believe we are talking about different things. I think we just understand them differently. You believe that as long as one person values what you produce, then you have created wealth, even if you have produced it through a forceful, non-voluntary act. I disagree. I do not see the theft of wealth as the creation of wealth. You also believe that what one produces has zero value to him. I do not see this to be true. All human action I have ever observed or heard of points to this being false.
Now, if you wish to claim that wealth can be created after it is stolen, obviously I would not argue. Of course one can steal wealth through force and then create more wealth through voluntary action later. (So in retrospect, I suppose I could have been more precise in my original post in which I responded to the question that began this thread, which should have read: “Governments cannot create wealth without first stealing it”…as, individuals in government could supposedly steal wealth and then use it to only engage in wealth-creating voluntary acts from then on…but again, as I also stated, if a government were only engaged in voluntary interaction, it would cease to be a government. And in reality, it’s not as if the government is creating any wealth even with the wealth that it steals, which was also part of the original question (i.e. “CAN AND DOES”))
But this is irrelevant, as the debate you have joined was centered around the question of whether wealth can be created through force. And as I pointed out previously, you have not shown this to be true. In fact, as I said, it would appear as though you have confirmed it to be false, by your statement of (paraphrase) “yes, wealth can be created through force…because you can initiate force and then create wealth afterward”…thus admitting that it is in fact the voluntary acts that take place outside of the force that create the new wealth…not the theft that takes place originally. (If I’m mischaracterizing what you said there, feel free to correct me.)