"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
> > >> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
child
> > >> > to
> > >> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > >> > actions.
> > >> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults, however,
we
> > >> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the individual
for
> > >> > their own actions.
> > >>
> > >> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible for
our
> > >> own
> > >> actions in other cases but not then?
> > >
> > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it
is
> > > an action?
> >
> > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> >
> > >> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > >> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of
other
> > >> > > > people's actions?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > See above
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > >> >
> > >> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
> > >>
> > >> Define the problem.
> > >>
> > >> > An accomplice
> > >> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the
thief.
> > >>
> > >> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.
> > >
> > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> >
> > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
accomplice
> > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another person"
as
> > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
>
> Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in Mexico
> kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> killing the amphibian?

As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
knowingly participate in it for their benefit.

In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for tomatoes,
and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and retailers
to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is more
than a red vegetable, it tells a story.

> Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have you
> determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?

There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.

> > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > >
> > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
valid?
> >
> > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
development
> > of homo sapiens social groups.
>
> An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without evidence.

A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would be
under anthropology.

> One might even call that faith.

Or a guess.

> One could even regard the criminal code
> as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as religion
> by form and function.

That could be argued, but to what purpose?