Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

Thread: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

  1. #71
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    The problem is that attributing this to selfishness effectively hollows out the word; it becomes meaningless. All you're really saying is that people do what they choose to do.
    And is that not selfish? I never said selfishness was bad or good.

    It just is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    What part of my argument has been disproven by anything you have said? Where have I said that "my" system is perfect?
    If your assumptions are just like that of Agnapostate it implies that it is perfect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    This is not really an argument at all. In order for one to accumulate capital, for example, capital must first exist. In a society where capital does not exist (or money, or government, or the state) this simply is not possible. As I have said earlier, social being determines consciousness; in order for someone to develop such a consciousness, their social being must necessitate that development. As I said earlier (and you agreed), one's consciousness is determined by the environment in which one lives.
    Are you really going to argue that some form of capital won't develop?
    Are you sure you want to do that?

    So your an entrenched behaviorist? What about genetics in psychological development?

    Are you sure you want to dismiss the findings by other schools of psychology?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Your argument shows your complete ignorance of the interconnections between social being and consciousness, and how both are formed, perpetuated, evolve, change, adapt, etc...
    I know a lot more than you think.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    Does that mean you don't care to tell me what you do for a living?

    Just to be fair... I'll go first. I'm a former aerospace engineer who now sells real estate.

    And you?

    I'm an executive officer of a nonprofit corporation.

    But does this mean that you don't care to share even a pretense of legitimate argument with us? You could at least have a shadow of credence for a brief moment until actual debate wisps that puff of smoke away.


  3. #73
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,898

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    And is that not selfish? I never said selfishness was bad or good.

    It just is.
    Selfishness is defined not simply by the fact that people choose what they do; as I've already said, that would hollow out the word, because everyone chooses what they do. Selfishness has meaning because it is defined as people choosing what they wish to do without regard to its effect on others, or with only secondary concern to others. It is the placing of one's own interests over those of others.

    It is only in this sense that the word really has any meaning.

    If your assumptions are just like that of Agnapostate it implies that it is perfect.
    I have not seen Agnapostate put forward any such assertion, implied or otherwise.

    Are you really going to argue that some form of capital won't develop?
    Are you sure you want to do that?
    Capital is a social relation. It can't develop unless it is recognized as such.

    Marx once made a good analogy to this effect. Why is a king a king? It is not simply because he holds a certain position within a caste system; quite the opposite, actually. A king only becomes a king when he is viewed by his followers to be one; in the same way followers only become followers when they view themselves as such, which is realized only when they recognize someone or someones as a leader. A king cannot simply take power and proclaim himself to be so, as if he has no followers then people will simply laugh at him. You could try this yourself, if you want, and see how it goes.

    Capital works in much the same way, as capital necessarily implies the existence of both a capitalist class and a working class. In actuality, the word "implies" does not fit correctly here (I was using it to better communicate my point), as capital is not a separate entity from both a capitalist and a working class. These are necessarily bound up within the concept of capital itself. So it would be more accurate to say that capital is a capitalist and a working class - namely, capitalist society. Capital is capitalism.

    What you are saying, then, is that capitalist society will inevitably wind up developing. However, returning to my king analogy, this is not the case, for it necessitates the acceptance of capital on a societal scale, which simply would not happen for the same reason that feudalism is rejected on a societal scale today.

    So your an entrenched behaviorist? What about genetics in psychological development?
    What point are you trying to make here? How does this in any way apply to anything being said?

    Are you sure you want to dismiss the findings by other schools of psychology?
    For me to dismiss such findings I would have to be aware of them.

    Of course, I could easily assume that you are referring to findings that have "concluded" that people are "naturally greedy" (the dollar bills in a bowl study is a good example of what is commonly offered as "conclusive proof" of this). This is quite easy to respond to, as the subjects of such studies have developed in capitalist society and obviously their consciousness has developed due to that environment.

    Unless you reject the notion that consciousness is determined by one's social being - by one's environment - then you cannot argue such a point, as it would be hypocritical.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Selfishness is defined not simply by the fact that people choose what they do; as I've already said, that would hollow out the word, because everyone chooses what they do. Selfishness has meaning because it is defined as people choosing what they wish to do without regard to its effect on others, or with only secondary concern to others. It is the placing of one's own interests over those of others.

    It is only in this sense that the word really has any meaning.
    What would a person acting concert both for themselves and to a lesser extent someone else be defined as?

    Would their act still not be considered selfish?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I have not seen Agnapostate put forward any such assertion, implied or otherwise.
    I have, both you and Agnapostate assume that individuals inside a community like the one described before will not act in their own self interest against the community at large.

    Agnepostate has made the assumption that the horizontal democracy will not be subject to hierarchical structures much the same every other part of the world is.

    These assumptions have been made on an appeal to authority by the statements that "Kropotkin" has made with no reciprocal evidence to prove otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Capital is a social relation. It can't develop unless it is recognized as such.

    Marx once made a good analogy to this effect. Why is a king a king? It is not simply because he holds a certain position within a caste system; quite the opposite, actually. A king only becomes a king when he is viewed by his followers to be one; in the same way followers only become followers when they view themselves as such, which is realized only when they recognize someone or someones as a leader. A king cannot simply take power and proclaim himself to be so, as if he has no followers then people will simply laugh at him. You could try this yourself, if you want, and see how it goes.

    Capital works in much the same way, as capital necessarily implies the existence of both a capitalist class and a working class. In actuality, the word "implies" does not fit correctly here (I was using it to better communicate my point), as capital is not a separate entity from both a capitalist and a working class. These are necessarily bound up within the concept of capital itself. So it would be more accurate to say that capital is a capitalist and a working class - namely, capitalist society. Capital is capitalism.

    What you are saying, then, is that capitalist society will inevitably wind up developing. However, returning to my king analogy, this is not the case, for it necessitates the acceptance of capital on a societal scale, which simply would not happen for the same reason that feudalism is rejected on a societal scale today.
    A with a breath of reason and history your claim has been debunked.

    Can a king not come to power through militant means?
    Seeing as how this has happened so many times in the past, I'm surprised you ignored it.
    Marx needs to study his theory more, there are to many holes in it.

    Capital has developed in societies not built on the academic recognition of capitalism.

    Domesticated animals were used as capital, as had gold, shells, beads, etc etc.

    Do you think all of these cultures are defined as capitalist?
    Do you think they even knew what capitalism was?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    What point are you trying to make here? How does this in any way apply to anything being said?


    For me to dismiss such findings I would have to be aware of them.

    Of course, I could easily assume that you are referring to findings that have "concluded" that people are "naturally greedy" (the dollar bills in a bowl study is a good example of what is commonly offered as "conclusive proof" of this). This is quite easy to respond to, as the subjects of such studies have developed in capitalist society and obviously their consciousness has developed due to that environment.

    Unless you reject the notion that consciousness is determined by one's social being - by one's environment - then you cannot argue such a point, as it would be hypocritical.
    You have made claims about the findings of psychology but are only relying on one school of thought to make those claims.
    (Edit: only some portions of an individuals development rely on environment)

    I guess I expected you to know a bit about psychology before making them.

    One's social being is defined by more than environment alone.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 03-17-09 at 03:10 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #75
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I'm an executive officer of a nonprofit corporation.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    But does this mean that you don't care to share even a pretense of legitimate argument with us? You could at least have a shadow of credence for a brief moment until actual debate wisps that puff of smoke away.

    I dunno... we might end up discussing whether Murray Rothbard kicked Murray Bookchin out of his house. Not topics I'm particularly interested in.


  6. #76
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,898

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    What would a person acting concert both for themselves and to a lesser extent someone else be defined as?

    Would their act still not be considered selfish?
    It depends on the action, but I don't see how this applies to your original definition of the word "selfish," which completely hollowed out all meaning, unless you are conceding to me that I was correct.

    I have, both you and Agnapostate assume that individuals inside a community like the one described before will not act in their own self interest against the community at large.
    I don't think I've ever made such a claim, nor has Agnapostate, as far as I've read. But I'll let him respond to this, as I've only read Mutual Aid once many years ago and am not concerned with defending what he has said.

    A with a breath of reason and history your claim has been debunked.

    Can a king not come to power through militant means?
    Seeing as how this has happened so many times in the past, I'm surprised you ignored it.
    Of course it can, and I am not ignoring it by any means.

    Quite the contrary, actually. The king, in rising to power, must make them recognize him as their King or he will have popular revolt on his hands.

    Capital has developed in societies not built on the academic recognition of capitalism.
    I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

    Domesticated animals were used as capital, as had gold, shells, beads, etc etc.
    On the contrary, they were used as commodities, not capital. Also, I am not saying that capital presumes capitalism as a world system; indeed, the development of capitalism from feudalism itself refutes such a claim.

    You have made claims about the findings of psychology but are only relying on one school of thought to make those claims.
    (Edit: only some portions of an individuals development rely on environment)
    Then aside from instinctual habits which we previously discussed, what do you believe? Why did you not bring up your disagreement earlier and provide some substantiation for it?

  7. #77
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    It depends on the action, but I don't see how this applies to your original definition of the word "selfish," which completely hollowed out all meaning, unless you are conceding to me that I was correct.
    Because even though someone can think of a social group before making a decision, there decision is in regards to self.

    "What will happen to me if I go against the group, what will happen to me if I go with the group."


    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I don't think I've ever made such a claim, nor has Agnapostate, as far as I've read. But I'll let him respond to this, as I've only read Mutual Aid once many years ago and am not concerned with defending what he has said.
    The entire argument hings on this one part.

    For your or Agnapostates society to exist it requires that people make a conscious decision not to go against the cooperative out of personal desires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Of course it can, and I am not ignoring it by any means.

    Quite the contrary, actually. The king, in rising to power, must make them recognize him as their King or he will have popular revolt on his hands.
    The capital can be forced or it can be naturally developed.

    In such a society if there is a shortage of something it will hold more value and thus can be considered capital.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
    Capital develops whether or not someone recognizes it as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    On the contrary, they were used as commodities, not capital. Also, I am not saying that capital presumes capitalism as a world system; indeed, the development of capitalism from feudalism itself refutes such a claim.
    Commodities can be capital.

    If two parties can trade on an agreeable value of the commodity it can be capital.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Then aside from instinctual habits which we previously discussed, what do you believe? Why did you not bring up your disagreement earlier and provide some substantiation for it?
    There are several schools of thought relating to psychology.

    I do believe that behaviorism has a lot of relevant information, studies and other works but it is not the only school of psychology to understand.

    I'm slightly in favor of cognitive-behaviorist theory, but overall I'm an eclectic theorist.

    Eclectic borrows from all schools.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #78
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,898

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Because even though someone can think of a social group before making a decision, there decision is in regards to self.

    "What will happen to me if I go against the group, what will happen to me if I go with the group."
    Not really; I don't really think that individuals necessarily put their own needs/wants over the needs/wants of society. Humans are social animals by nature, and because of that I severely doubt that what you are saying is accurate.

    For your or Agnapostates society to exist it requires that people make a conscious decision not to go against the cooperative out of personal desires.
    No it doesn't. Not at all, actually.

    The capital can be forced or it can be naturally developed.

    In such a society if there is a shortage of something it will hold more value and thus can be considered capital.
    Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.

    Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

    Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].

    MIA

    Capital develops whether or not someone recognizes it as such.
    Capital is a social relation, and therefore it cannot develop unless it is socially recognized and socially perpetuated.

    Commodities can be capital.

    If two parties can trade on an agreeable value of the commodity it can be capital.
    This makes no sense. See the above definition. Capital is not simply something you trade for money or for another good.

    There are several schools of thought relating to psychology.

    I do believe that behaviorism has a lot of relevant information, studies and other works but it is not the only school of psychology to understand.

    I'm slightly in favor of cognitive-behaviorist theory, but overall I'm an eclectic theorist.

    Eclectic borrows from all schools.
    You have yet to provide me with any information showing the inaccuracies of my assertions.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Not really; I don't really think that individuals necessarily put their own needs/wants over the needs/wants of society. Humans are social animals by nature, and because of that I severely doubt that what you are saying is accurate.
    They are social your are right, but are they social because they care more for the group or because they have an individual need to be social.

    What I'm saying is that humans are social because of a self need.


    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    No it doesn't. Not at all, actually.
    That assumes that mutual aid is the best form of individual stability.
    Or that it will be the method that brings the biggest individual returns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.


    The commodities themselves were money and capital.

    before the rise of gold as a commodity money, cows were used as such.

    Whoever had the most cows had the largest amount of capital.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Marx represent this as C - M - C or Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [Marx represented this as M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.
    What about C-C? That is just bartering but again if one has more perceived value on one commodity than it can be capital.
    It could also be money if it is the most desired commodity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M'].
    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    It can happen with a commodity. C-C-C can represent an increase in value based of several factors like regional supply and need.

    A trader trades 3 cows (which are in short supply) in one area for gold (which there is a surplus of and then later trades the gold (where there is not a surplus of) for 4 cows.

    Its simplistic but I think it makes my point easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Capital is a social relation, and therefore it cannot develop unless it is socially recognized and socially perpetuated.
    I guess I was saying that someone doesn't go "ohh this is capital, now I must use it". Looking back that was a bit stupid.

    What creates it as capital is a recognition that it has a higher value order over other goods inside the structure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    This makes no sense. See the above definition. Capital is not simply something you trade for money or for another good.
    It can be. A commodity can be capital.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    You have yet to provide me with any information showing the inaccuracies of my assertions.
    The general fields of Psychology

    Psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Why I think that current environment alone won't affect a persons thought process.
    Prior evolutionary environments have a big affect on the way a person thinks and acts.

    Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Navy deployed to Venezuela airports, seaports

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    I dunno... we might end up discussing whether Murray Rothbard kicked Murray Bookchin out of his house. Not topics I'm particularly interested in.

    Then you'll want to avoid exposure to capitalism.

    "Anarcho-left theorist Murray Bookchin became an occasional visitor to the Rothbard living room-until Rothbard one day angrily kicked him out of the house." (Radicals for Capitalism, p. 240)


Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •