/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11578102]

Nietzsche is a libertarian prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.11578110]

No need to prove you wrong: you are right.

[Anonymous No.11578114]

Why not prove yourself right first?

[Anonymous No.11578116]

Yes postmoderns love the Human Rights

[Anonymous No.11578120]

>>11578114
Ok, here is excerpts from "The New Idol" in Zarathustra

>Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states.

>A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.

>A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it also lies; and this lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

>It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

>Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.

>Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.

...

>Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becomes sickness and trouble unto them!

[Anonymous No.11578148]

he was actually an egoist anarchist

[Anonymous No.11578152]

>>11578148
He was not an anarchist because he believed in aristocrats. Also he explicitly condemned anarchists in his writings as nihilistic and of the mob.

[Anonymous No.11578160]

>>11578148
see:

"The Christian and the anarchist: both are décadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future"

In the antichrist section 58. He condemns anarchists many times in this text, just do a ctrl + f search https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm

[Anonymous No.11578162]

>>11578102
Nietzsche took the side of the masters over the slaves, which implictly endorses robbery, conquest, enslavement, and force-driven politics.

There is no room for a libertarian playpen town in Nietzsche's world. There is no room in ours, either.

US libertarianism is based entirely on the frontier experience, which was PARASITIC on the military force and protection of the Washington government and the economy of the East coast. The Wild West so beloved of libertarians was a wildlife reserve for lower class pawnshop owners, bartenders, scavengers ("prospectors"), farmers, and prostitutes.

It wasn't a blank slate society. It was a NEET society supported by its parents, Washington and New York. And of course it was unregulated - because the East picked up the bill and provided all the benefits with none of the direct requirements. In fact, you could say the Frontier was filled with welfare queens by proxy.

[Anonymous No.11578222]

>>11578162
>masters over the slaves, which implictly endorses robbery, conquest, enslavement, and force-driven politics

So, libertarianism.

>which was PARASITIC on the military force and protection of the Washington government

wah wah wah muh state. Hey guess what, private mercenary companies were used in the American revolution and nothing bad happened.

>And of course it was unregulated - because the East picked up the bill

if this is even true (I would love a source for it) they did this because there were obvious imperial gains from taking over and taming an entire continent, not least in resources and opening up trade routes in the pacific. I don't think the east oil men were hit that badly with the bills of saloon guys using telegram wires, lmfao

[Anonymous No.11578233]

>>11578162
I don't know anything about Nitsch, but this is as accurate a critique of American faux-libertarianism as has ever been written.

[Anonymous No.11578371]

>>11578233
What is "real" libertarianism, then?

[Anonymous No.11578391]

>>11578148
>anarchist
lolno

Nietzsche was favorable to those individuals who were creative, not destructive.

[Anonymous No.11578412]

>>11578102
Nietzsche didn't endorse a political platform because he didn't support any.

He supported the elite who decide things for the masses. He admired Alexander the Great and Napoleon, both people who were only used politics as a vehicle for themselves.

[Anonymous No.11578438]

>>11578148
I found Lange's book in my school's library a while back and checked it out because of that Wikipedia article. It's kind of comical how little Lange wrote of Stirner (though understandable - the guy was/is a pretty niche/obscure interest). Haven't read the other though, maybe there's more in it.

[Anonymous No.11578459]

>>11578412
Ohhhh so he'd like Trump

[Anonymous No.11578474]

>>11578459
Definitely

[Anonymous No.11578480]

>>11578474
So I'm basically a Nietzschean. #MAGA

[Anonymous No.11578490]

>>11578480
>#MAGA

There you go and make it cringey. He didn't like cringe stuff and herd mentality. So just chill with that

[Anonymous No.11578526]

>>11578160
>>11578391
Nietzsche explicitly talks a about how destruction and ceation are two sides of the same coin and how every act of creation is also one of destruction.
He also talks about how his overman looks like the devil.
So maybe he believed that about the strains of anarchism popular during his time, but he takes an individualist anarchist position nearly constantly.

>>11578222
No, libertarians believe in a minimal state.
Nietzsche does not see any state as legitimate. Spot the difference yet?

>>11578412
Anarchism isn't a platform, and political positions are inescapable. Even people who don't care and understand nothing have them. They're usually called Republicans.

[Anonymous No.11578589]

>>11578222
Libertarianism is based on delusional thinking about the strength on contracts. If El Chapo doesn't like you, he tears up your contract and shoots you. If you're in the Midwestern playpen, protected by the US military, there is no risk of an El Chapo rising up.

>private mercenary companies were used in the American revolution and nothing bad happened.
This is infantile thinking.

In absence of a state, the most powerful force calls the shots and monopolises the use of violence. How does it do this? By subjugating the competition violently. Why does it do this? Read Nietzsche to find out.

The bill I refer to is the US military. The only reason there were no warlords or new governments formed on the frontier is because the US prevented it by monopolising legitimate violence.

If some apple-cheeked businessman from Sunshineville, Territory of Midwestia, decided to form a private army and declare independence, his forces would have been crushed and he would have been hanged for treason.

Your idea of libertarianism is based on ignorance of what war and conflict actually are, and this blissful ignorance is what your tax dollars bought you. Try visiting Sinaloa to see what it looks like when the government monopoly on violence begins to break down.

Ultimately, this is a childish evasion of the truth of government: MONOPOLY on violence. A government decides whether you live or die. You don't get to wriggle out of it by pointing out the fine print, or making principled objections. If a government says you're going to bed without your supper, you have no say in the matter. If you are blindfolded and made to stand in front of a pitted wall and then shot at, you are dead; and you are not only dead, you are a dead criminal.

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong in principle. Whoever monopolises violence decides what is right and wrong, even retroactively.

[Anonymous No.11578674]

>>11578526
>individualist anarchist
that is a poetic metaphor rather than a political ideology. Next!

>>11578589
Your vision of state military is completely warped by statist rhetoric from the 20th century. Founder of Blackwater explains it better than I ever could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV_skhRZ0Mw


>It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong in principle. Whoever monopolises violence decides what is right and wrong, even retroactively.

This is obviously wrong because revolutions have occurred. The America revolution disproves this entire notion. So tired of hearing this "monopoly on violence" big man rhetoric from richard spencer fan boys & co. You're just gay resentful plebeians who need the herd and the state to make yourself feel important and not some romanticist bohemian with an inferiority complex. Nietzsche would hate you.

[Anonymous No.11578701]

>>11578102
I say he is more of an egoist than a libertarian (though they are a form of egoist).

[Anonymous No.11578731]

>>11578674
You apparently missed the part where I told you that libertarians believe in a state for contract enforcement, while Nietzsche does not want any state.

Therein lies the key to your confusion.
Read On the Flies of the Marketplace a few more times.

[Anonymous No.11578735]

>>11578674
My point about American revolution, to elaborate, was that right and wrong is emphatically not decided by the monopoly on violence. If you had read genealogy you would know this. I used the American revolution to show how the british empire had the monopoly of violence over the radical colonists and they nevertheless had a differing concept of right and wrong to the point where they convinced enough of the countrymen to rise up and defeat the empire. This was purely the work of intellect and persuasive rational reasoning, had nothing to do with brute force. Nietzsche thinsk brute force is inept, he uses the word power (macht) rather than force (kraft) for a good reason. For nietzsche it's all about sublimation of the will to power into creative endeavors. Ultimately war decided matters in the American revolution, but the fact the war was even possibly had to come from a differing conception of right and wrong while the colonists were still underneath the monopoly of violence possessed by the British.

[Anonymous No.11578763]

>>11578731
>Read On the Flies of the Marketplace

the immanent reality of capitalism is not predicated on the vulgarity of consumerism. That is a choice made by some practitioners of capitalism just like you use your iphone to argue about philosophy rather than what black people do with iphones

[Anonymous No.11578791]

>>11578674
I'm not watching a video posted by an idiot.

>The America revolution disproves this entire notion.
On the contrary, it proves my point perfectly.

The 13 Colonies successfully banded together and monopolised violence in their area. The British state was no longer able to force them to pay taxes or act as subjects should because their force was successfully opposed and a new force established, eclipsing all others.

While not disproving anything, the Americn revolution did create many generations of deluded backwoodsmen who all thought that the Feds were their own personal King George III, and that they had just as much right as the founders to rebel against him.

Right to rebel is a delusion. Historically, the only reason the concept exists is because the 13 Colonies were a completely new settlement. They couldn't claim to be one nation rebelling against its overlord, they couldn't invoke ancient history, regional languages, religious difference, or any of the usual causes for rebellion, because they were perfectly normal Englishmen who just happened to be outside the area where their government could project power. They felt there was room for their own power, but they had no concrete, earthy reason to rebel. So they couched their rebellion in abstract and idealistic terms.

But the reality is that they wanted power. They got it. And they never let go.

Witness the Civil War. The states had the right to secede on paper. In fact, you could say they had a contract guaranteeing that they could withdraw from the deal at any time. How lovely. I'm sure a libertarian would feel so reassured by that piece of paper.

But in the end, paper is paper. The South went to bed without its supper. Because the Union said so. They had the right, but not the power, and in the end they had to do what they were told.

[Anonymous No.11578801]

>>11578791
No you idiot it does not prove your point because they were able to edit the concept of right and wrong before they had muh monopoly on violence which violates the entirety of your worldview. Next!

[Anonymous No.11578810]

>>11578735
Posted before I saw this.

Civil War proves that you can have the right on paper, but if you are defeated, you are wrong and criminal.

[Anonymous No.11578853]

>>11578801
Philosophy and armed rebellion are two different things.

What philosophy do you think came to play in the Nuremberg Trials, where people were executed for violating laws that were written after the deeds in question?

"Oh, but they were Nazis. I'm not a Nazi. I'm an American. We won the war. We're the good guys."

[Anonymous No.11578891]

he doesn´t like people, he is an aristocrat

[Anonymous No.11578898]

>>11578371
Some sort of strange fantasy where evolutionary biology doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.11578899]

>>11578480

[Anonymous No.11578900]

>>11578853
>>11578853
Another question I might ask: what Iraqi laws did Saddam Hussein break? I suppose there was one in the books about losing the war. That's a pretty serious offense. I bet he didn't pay his laundry bills, either - that's a whipping offense in the Libertarian Commonwealth of Sunshineville, subject to a town vote.

Town votes in Sunshineville always go smoothly, because there's a law against tampering with the votes. And people obey the law because they all have guns, and they especially obey the law about not having large numbers of young angry men with guns in their employ, and make sure not to intimidate anyone, because there's a law against eyeballing too. And let's not forget the law against killing candidates for office and suspending elections. Everything is so sunny in Sunshineville, it's almost like living in a country where criminal violence is deeply inhibited and scared of some gigantic force of some kind.

[Anonymous No.11579084]

He absorbed semen. Libertarians absorb feces.

[Anonymous No.11579092]

>>11579084
>He absorbed semen.
I know what you're referring to; let me just say you misunderstood him.

[Anonymous No.11579120]

He is right wing easily

[Anonymous No.11579141]

"individualism" is wrong. You can't just go up into the hills for a few days and learn everything ever

[Anonymous No.11579247]

>>11579141
Yes, you learn by descending from the mountains and giving.
Let your kindness be your final overcoming.

[Anonymous No.11579865]

>>11578102
I disagree. Although he says the state is a lie and that great men dwell on mountaintops, I think that taken in whole his philosophy, if it points to any sort of political arrangement at all, seems to advocate for a kind of warrior-aristocracy. He repeatedly endorses and 'order of rank' and at least acknowledges the role of 'duty' and 'privilege'.

His individualism is not for every one. Not every one can bear the mountaintop, nor should we expect them to. He very clearly advocates for a kind of elite capable of marshaling their power over whatever they like, economy included, to serve their interest, to glorify themselves. I fail to imagine him calling on the higher man to enact his will to power at all costs unless it interferes with free market principles or 'natural rights' (a concept completely foreign to Nietzsche and which would probably lead him to laughter.)

The state, the people, sovereignty, these are tools, not gods.

[Anonymous No.11579904]

>>11579865
Honestly it is absurd to align him with any (post-)Enlightenment political project. The entire post-Christian moral structure is repugnant to him: universal rights, equality, utilitarianism et al. All of it is completely antithetical to his understanding of the world. Every one from libertarians, classical liberals, socialists, anarchists the whole gamut of liberal ideologies is anti-Nietzschean in the extreme.

[Anonymous No.11580005]

>>11578148
Based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11580259]

>>11578102
>NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL UBERMENSCH

[Anonymous No.11580311]

>>11578120
Seeing through the coldest of all cold monsters doesn't make one a libertarian. Libertarians want to cast him down and have no one take his place, but Nietzsche clearly believed in a self-willed aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.11580442]

>>11578102
*Soundcloud Rapper

[Anonymous No.11581981]

>>11578589
Very well put! More of this, friend!

[Anonymous No.11582598]

>>11578853
“All is a will to power, and nothing besides.”

He would not condemn the Nuremberg trials — in fact he would probably laugh at them, since he spent a good part of his adult life criticizing Germans, Germany, German nationalism, anti-semites, promoting the replacement of the white working class, praising Jews, etc. They lost, they were humiliated, so yeah, they are the “bad guys” in a master moral sense. Only a caucasion universalist slave moralist would have pity for the Nazis.

[Anonymous No.11583624]

Nietzsche was an Anarcho-capitalist.
Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.11583831]

>>11578102
nope
>>11578148
nope
>>11583624
nope

If Nietzsche would advocate for anything, he'd advocate for a return to military dictatorship ("Caesar with the soul of Christ" is his superman, "To renounce war is to renounce the 'great life'", his high praise of the aristocratic values of Rome before Christianity).

Nietzsche encouraged decadence (while claiming that the slave-morality resulted in decadence) and aristocratic values. He valued judgments that advanced and preserved life rather than judgments that were moral or "true". His ethics are impractical without slavery.

>>11582598
>anti-semites, promoting the replacement of the white working class, praising Jews
What are you talking about? I agree with the rest of your statement though.

[Anonymous No.11583843]

>>11583831
Slavery of the slave moralists is a good thing

[Anonymous No.11583848]

>>11582598
>Only a caucasion universalist slave moralist would have pity for the Nazis.

[Anonymous No.11583920]

Nietzsche's a child, a sham, a fraud, and literally an insane man. He equated his marginally larger cock (when compared to that of the man that cucked him anyways) with status of ubermensch, and would have been better off had he just admitted that he'd be better served by his so-called slave morals. His body of works is more of an autistic rant than it is philosophy, and his ethics "system" pales in comparison to that of any other studied philosopher today [who set out to build one].

[Anonymous No.11584606]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11584788]

>>11583831
I'd take a guess that you don't actually know much about Caesar or Roman history for that matter. Caesar was essentially a shrewd business man. Read moar

[Anonymous No.11584793]

>>11583831
>What are you talking about? I agree with the rest of your statement though.

Read The Dawn, it's in there, a couple aphorisms after 200. Also, he criticizes anti-semites in Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy, and Twilight of the Idols