- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,406
- Reaction score
- 8,258
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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?