/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12553701]

-The State’s behaviour is violence, and it calls its violence “law”; that of the individual, “crime.”

[Anonymous No.12553706]

>>12553701
yo look at this dude.

[Anonymous No.12553715]

yeah retard for a state to be sovereign it has to have a monopoly on violence... and that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.12553721]

>>12553715
I'm ok with that, but do people realise this?

[Anonymous No.12553729]

>>12553701
every act is an act of violence over the world retard, literally nothing could exist without violence

[Anonymous No.12553736]

>>12553715
>sovereignty is good
Explain this piss talk

[Anonymous No.12553743]

>>12553721
no, people are dumb and think iron man should tell them what to think about international trade disputes

[Anonymous No.12553747]

>>12553729
>nothing could exist without violence
>if I broaden the definition of a word until it means almost nothing, I win!
Young white """males""" , everyone

[Anonymous No.12553754]

>>12553736
it's not good or bad, it's a way to stabilize the world, do it differently if you want and are strong enough, nobody is stopping you

[Anonymous No.12553755]

>>12553736
sovereignty is a manifestation of collective will to power

[Anonymous No.12553757]

>>12553743
and yet these dumb people are voting in the heads of state, ergo influencing sovereignty... and that's a good thing :^)

[Anonymous No.12553761]

>>12553747
violence is enforcing a state of affairs, it's going to happen unless you believe in a magical world where everybody is sucking each other's cock, and even in that world you would still commit violence by sucking in the wrong way

[Anonymous No.12553769]

>>12553754
>stabilize the world
And yet here we are during a mass extinction, ever on the brink of a disaster, struggling from one crisis to the next and so on--power is not about stability, it thrives in the absence of stability
>>12553755
>collective will to power
Why make shit up eh?

[Anonymous No.12553770]

>>12553757
sovereignty exists in spite of representative democracy

[Anonymous No.12553772]

>>12553757
they are voting but they aren't deciding who to vote, there are institutions in place that decide for them

[Anonymous No.12553773]

>>12553757
>implying the state has to be purely democratic

[Anonymous No.12553780]

>>12553769
everything is made up stay woke

[Anonymous No.12553782]

>>12553769
>And yet here we are during a mass extinction
irrelevant to humans
>ever on the brink of a disaster
debatable
>struggling from one crisis to the next
and that's a good thing
>power is not about stability, it thrives in the absence of stability
t. has never spent a day in an actual warzone

[Anonymous No.12553784]

>>12553761
Again, you are not saying anything
>enforcing a state of affairs
A fence is violence. Accidents are violent and so on...if it fits my narrative

[Anonymous No.12553789]

>>12553784
what narrative? OP is just empty magical talk, talking about the violence of the state only makes sense with the hypothetical vision of an state of affairs without a state with less violence, which is just a fantasy until proven

you can't simply talk about phenomena without a background to compare it with

[Anonymous No.12553796]

>>12553782
>irrelevant to humans
Retard
>debatable
Incontestable rather
>and that's a good thing
Glib
>has never spent a day in a war zone
Lived in Hamas controlled areas of Lebanon during a shell campaign and Israeli retaliatory strikes you faggot. That is when power flexes without contest.

[Anonymous No.12553798]

>>12553701
read this and get actually redpilled OP
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

[Anonymous No.12553800]

>>12553770
which is exactly what i said. sovereignty is effectively imposed by the uninformed trash, how is that not a self defeating system?
>>12553772
and to speak this truth is a betrayal of the structure itself. the state can have its sovereignty, all i want is honesty and transparency in return

[Anonymous No.12553805]

>>12553796
>when power
again, what is """power""", you are talking about violence and power as if you knew some kind of neutral space without either, which is just a magical world unless you make a proposition of something concrete

[Anonymous No.12553813]

>>12553782
>irrelevant to humans
Imagine believing this.
https://youtu.be/7gcMzST69VE

[Anonymous No.12553814]

>>12553789
Your narrative (I thought) is that violence is merely a fact of life, ubiquitous in all kinds of activity which to me is an apologetic for the very real violence perpetuated by states and individuals. You're minimizing real acts of violence.

[Anonymous No.12553815]

>>12553800
>and to speak this truth is a betrayal of the structure itself
what the fuck are you talking about? nobody cares about how much you shitpost because it's irrelevant, talk as much as you want

[Anonymous No.12553821]

>>12553701
Why does he have to be so aesthetic? Even this dude's name is aesthetic.

"Samuel Barclay Beckett"

Matter of fact, so is "James Augustine Aloysius Joyce."

[Anonymous No.12553822]

>>12553789
>Doesnt read Stirner
>Particiaptes in conversation about a topic
>Clomplains there is no background/info to compare with.

[Anonymous No.12553824]

>>12553814
and you are talking as if social life is possible without coercion, but it's not, there's coercion in every group of 2 friends, not sure how you believe in a magical world of millions without any of it

[Anonymous No.12553827]

>>12553701
is that an actual photo of Biggus Foreheadus?

[Anonymous No.12553830]

>>12553805
Power i.e. in that case Israeli state power, Hamas militia power. The Lebanese in the border regions desire for autonomy and self determination be damned, just start destroying and killing and the more nuanced aspects of life are lost in misery.

[Anonymous No.12553831]

>>12553822
if Stirner is so deep provide a decent quote by the guy, OP's just sounds like a random 14yo anarchist kid, if he is so good i'm sure you can find something better

[Anonymous No.12553833]

>>12553827
indeed.

[Anonymous No.12553842]

>>12553824
If you see coercion everywhere it is likely because you yourself are coercive, and you can't imagine other people being different.

[Anonymous No.12553844]

>>12553830
and what are ""The Lebanese"" if not a group of people tied together by different forced ties of social coercion and restrictive rules? without violence you wouldn't even have a "Lebanese" to liberate in the first place

i'm not trying to argue violence and injustice doesn't exist, but that's another question

[Anonymous No.12553855]

>>12553842
i'm basically a hermit and try very hard not to impose myself on others, i just don't see how can you build a society without some degree of coercion, social life by definition means you have to give up some degree of freedom for it to work

[Anonymous No.12553858]

>>12553800
Sovereignty is not and has never been imposed by the masses. The democratic idea of "popular sovereignty" is a propaganda tool to enforce sovereignty on the masses.

Nations may stagger like drunken beasts when they abandon the narratives and meta narratives that fed them but do not mistake their stumbles for weakness. Sovereignty existed before democracy and it will exist after it is gone. Sovereignty is neolithic in it's origin.

[Anonymous No.12553861]

>>12553831
I'm OP and I read Ego and its Own a couple of times. One in Catalan, and in English.

-“Where the world comes in my way—and it comes in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use. We owe each other nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at most to myself. If I show you a cheery air in order to cheer you likewise, then your cheeriness is of consequence to me, and my air serves my wish; to a thousand others, whom I do not aim to cheer, I do not show it.”
I this one enough? Have some more underlined.

[Anonymous No.12553862]

>>12553815
>retard thinks i'm talking about myself
retard

[Anonymous No.12553866]

>>12553701
>based

[Anonymous No.12553870]

>>12553844
You're a coward for hiding behind semantics. You wouldnt carry that argument to its logical conclusion that synthetic national ties are falsehoods upheld only by the threat of violent acts. That they have no purpose, nor can give purpose outside the coercive strategies of psychopaths and mental defectives.
You are arguing in a pointlessly cynical fashion, i doubt you have any interest in these things at all.

[Anonymous No.12553874]

>>12553858
that's good, but you have to go one step forward: without the nation "the masses" have nothing uniting "the masses", and wouldn't even be a "mass" in the first place, just an incoherent mess with different goals

[Anonymous No.12553878]

>>12553855
Well take courage and believe a better world is possible.

[Anonymous No.12553883]

>>12553824
>>12553855
Stirner actually quotes a healthy friendship as the perfect egoist relationship, since it benefits both parties - giving up a degree of your freedom is voluntary here and you can just cut ties if it gets overbearing or otherwise unpleasant

[Anonymous No.12553885]

>>12553870
it's not semantics, the same violence that israel commits over the lebanese is the kind of violence that holds the lebanese together

i am ok with arguing against against israel violence over the lebanese for specific reasons, but don't try to make it sound like you are making a grandiose claim against all violence and coercion when every nation (and every social bond) is held by it at some degree

[Anonymous No.12553898]

>>12553729
>I trade my labor digging a ditch for 5 pieces of silver, willingly, and the man giving me the silver also willingly agreed to this.

Where is the violence?

[Anonymous No.12553903]

>>12553701
That's not max stirner.

[Anonymous No.12553907]

>>12553878
i think you'll make things worse by believing that carelessly
>>12553883
i don't believe humans are just isolated bubbles, the reason you like your friendships in the first place is a value structure that was violently imposed on you as a kid at some point, it didn't magically popup from your gut

[Anonymous No.12553911]

>>12553885
Not wanting to be killed holds these people together, or rather it is a commonality they share. Cooperation does exist and can exist without violence, though violence may indeed be its cause. That is the question that keeps me up, is it possible to rid the world of warlords and mass murderers without using violence against them. I think it a very brave, scary notion that perhaps it is indeed best to "resist not evil". In any case I wish you well don't believe too much in your negative view of life.

[Anonymous No.12553912]

>>12553784
>a fence is violence
>an inanimate object is capable of violence

Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.12553915]

>>12553898
you have many things in place that you didn't get to choose in the first place for such an exchange to be possible

an to maintain such an state of affairs requires everybody around you to respect that state of the world

[Anonymous No.12553916]

>>12553898
violence is a multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses it's own absence.

[Anonymous No.12553921]

>>12553907
>it didnt magically pop up in your gut
It has mysteriously arisen in human culture (and perhaps in animal cultures as well), there was no ancient committee to invent the lie of friendship.

[Anonymous No.12553927]

>>12553916
Wow violence is everything including nonviolence.. At last I truly see.

[Anonymous No.12553929]

>>12553911
>Not wanting to be killed holds these people together
well, it's easy to stay together when there's a clear enemy, i am more interested in how to keep things running smoothly even when nobody is trying to kill us

[Anonymous No.12553935]

>>12553921
there was a lot of social coercion, coercive structures can arise without a cabal conspiring to put them in place

[Anonymous No.12553944]

>>12553915
what part did I not get to choose?

[Anonymous No.12553962]

>>12553701
>talks about Stirner
>posts a picture of Blanchot
wdhmbt?

[Anonymous No.12553965]

>>12553944
your valuing silver is dependent upon an acknowledgement of a social contract that silver has value. The social contract is dependent on passive and active violence.

[Anonymous No.12553967]

>>12553929
Death is a constant and so is suffering
Education and nurturing could alert people to this reality in the small details of life.
Another constant is our ability to care for ourselves and one another it is astounding and something which distinguishes our species for the most part.

[Anonymous No.12553974]

>>12553944
all the social rules, civilizational progress, inventions and structure that make such an exchange meaningful and possible

[Anonymous No.12553986]

>>12553965
Ok. Say I chose to accept 5 pounds of apples instead.

>social contract

The social contract does not exist. You can't enter someone else into a contract.

[Anonymous No.12553993]

>>12553962
>Blanchot
It was a lit meme couple years ago

[Anonymous No.12553998]

>>12553986
the apples prevent you from starving to death, ie the passive natural violence that permeates the state of the world.

and it absolutely does.

[Anonymous No.12554002]

>>12553974
Say civilization breaks down completely tomorrow, and there are no more police and no laws or anything of the sort.

I can dig a ditch for my neighbor and he has apples which I want. So lets say he gives me the apples to dig the ditch. Where is the violence?

[Anonymous No.12554004]

>>12553986
>>12553944
the fact that you can expect to get close enough to another human being, have a reasonable discussion with them and come to an agreement and expect them to hold their part of the agreement

many things have to be in place for that to be possible, and most people in most times of history wouldn't even assume anything like that to be a reasonable worldview

[Anonymous No.12554011]

>>12553998
>it absolutely does.

Where is it written and when did I enter into it?

[Anonymous No.12554015]

>>12554002
the violence comes when 5 people from the next village come and rape you both and take your apples

[Anonymous No.12554018]

>>12553898
what's preventing the man from not paying you the silver when you're done digging the ditch?

whats stopping you from taking the silver from him and doing no work?

[Anonymous No.12554021]

>>12554002
>I can dig a ditch for my neighbor and he has apples which I want
the fact that you can consider your neighbor still a neighbor means that civilization has not really fallen

[Anonymous No.12554027]

>>12554004
What is and is not violence?

If everything is violence, the category violence is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.12554037]

>>12554015
Ah, so you concede that in the initial transaction there was no violence?

And who is to say that they are capable of that?

[Anonymous No.12554042]

>>12554021
Neighbor - n - one in the proximity of another.

[Anonymous No.12554058]

>>12554037
see>>12554018

[Anonymous No.12554074]

>>12554018
A decline in social credit and other people not wanting to associate with him or me in transactions.

[Anonymous No.12554084]

>>12554074
is this bait?

[Anonymous No.12554109]

i thought lolbertarians went extinct on 2016

[Anonymous No.12554134]

>>12553701
First off, that's not Stirner in the picture.
>The State’s behaviour is violence, and it calls its violence “law”; that of the individual, “crime.”
Brainlet thinking. Of course the state uses violence, if it didn't, it would cease to be a state, genius. The laws, regulate social behavior. Individual's violating them, indeed commit a crime, or rather "crime" if you want to use superfluous quotes in order to look profound.

There is a reason Stirner isn't popular. He isn't intelligent. Read his writings and the stylometry is very simple and the thought process is like a kid. Look at the Ego and Its Own. Low IQ and trying very hard to look intelligence (pseud). He uses pointless quotes time and again, offers retard analogies like above, italicizes, dashes, all to no real effect other than for want of looking astute. Everything remotely of value he has to offer, someone else has said it better. Stirner is Ayn Rand tier in the world of philosophy.


The only people who take him seriously are the low IQ anime watching freaks, sodomites, and paedos. Stirner is absolute trash.

[Anonymous No.12554142]

>>12554134
>beeing this new

[Anonymous No.12554205]

>>12553898
>if you don't do it you will starve
>agreement
Going to be fun watching capitalism burn.

[Anonymous No.12554213]

>>12553916
So this is the power of the postmoderns...

[Anonymous No.12554215]

>>12554011
instead of apples and silver you should have asked for a brain

[Anonymous No.12554226]

Lotta utopian nonsense in here

[Anonymous No.12554238]

>>12554226
lot of my dick in ur mom

[Anonymous No.12554440]

>>12554027
>What is and is not violence?
Wu-wei

[Anonymous No.12554467]

>>12554074
If he's willing to steal what the fuck does he care about social credit Ancrap?

[Anonymous No.12554708]

>>12553715
>and that's a good thing

Really it isn't. You think so because you live in a nation where people have fought to have rights, which are protected in laws, which are mostly upheld by the state. This is abnormal.

History is a river of blood. The state, power, must at all times be fought, or you will lose what little gains have been made in this infinitesimal current of that river. Stirner will remind you of that.

[Anonymous No.12554720]

>>12554467
Then I shoot him.

[Anonymous No.12554735]

>>12554215
Not an answer.

I have this castrati contract that you were entered into the moment you were born which states I can make a eunuch out of you and then use you as a sex slave.

[Anonymous No.12554828]

>>12553827
>>12553833
its not

[Anonymous No.12554929]

>>12554708
Oh no I despise democracy and human rights. I only value will and power

[Anonymous No.12554963]

>>12554142
>i-i'm only pretending to be retarded!
People unironically have used that thinking it was him. Given how low IQ Stirnerfags are, I would not put it past them to actually think that was the case.

[Anonymous No.12554974]

>>12553701
Who's that?

[Anonymous No.12554978]

>>12554134
should laws regulate morality?

[Anonymous No.12554992]

>>12554974
Stirner, or so it says on the image

[Anonymous No.12555002]

>>12554974
Rudolf Stirner

[Anonymous No.12555082]

>>12554978
yes

[Anonymous No.12555194]

isnt that beckett?

[Anonymous No.12555199]

>>12555002
Jeremy Irons

[Anonymous No.12556122]

>>12554720
Violence

[Anonymous No.12556701]

If there was a superior alternative to violence, in the sense that violence was defeated in all cases by this superior alternative, shouldn't it have manifested and eliminated violence?

[Anonymous No.12556791]

>>12554978
More important than anything else.

[Anonymous No.12558273]

>>12554720
>then everything magically works out for me
lolbertarians everybody

[Anonymous No.12558278]

>>12554978
>>12555082
>>12556791
based

[Anonymous No.12558289]

>>12558278
Unfunny / reddit-tier

[Anonymous No.12558998]

>>12554929
based

[Anonymous No.12559011]

>>12556122
Stirner BTFO

[Anonymous No.12559015]

>>12553701
Read Hobbes.

[Anonymous No.12559060]

What individuals do not seem to realise, is that most people do not want to be individualists. By most I mean 99.9999% of people. I don't want to be an individualist. I don't want to fend for my own survival, I don't want to hunt, I don't want to fortify my own personal little shelter. Fuck that shit, I have a collective to fulfill these tasks for me, and yes, I fully realise that the price is paid in many freedoms, so be it. Freedums are ultimately dispensable.

[Anonymous No.12559079]

>>12559060
it isnt "freedums" that you lose it's autonomy and decision making in your own life. you essentially become thrall to whatever is protecting you. it may seem abstract and unimportant to you but it literally isnt. it has very real concrete effects. seen in the modern western world in the huge amounts of people who are otherwise physically healthy but are on some kind of pill or other just to be able to function daily.

[Anonymous No.12559086]

>>12559060
this is naive. you have to be able to fend for and protect yourself. no one gives a fuck about you like you do. you cannot offload that onto a 3rd party. they will use that power to harm you and benefit them, eventually. this is why people in bad neighborhoods who arent in gangs and also people living in spaced out rural areas carry guns. police officers only exist as clerks with guns. they cant be trusted to protect you, you have to protect you

[Anonymous No.12559097]

>>12559086
>you have to
I don't "have to", you have to. I have a collective do it for me. Pretty convenient, actually.

[Anonymous No.12559101]

>>12554004
thats just not true. holding up your end of the deal was expected among most communities of people in premodern pre capitalist times because people unlike now lived in fairly close knit communities. if you screwed someone over, it was going to be known and in a lot of places the punishment was banishment or just straight death. trust is something that organically emerges, because it has to. the state has nothing to do with it, and in fact all aspects of the state essentially hijack this function

[Anonymous No.12559103]

>>12559097
by you have to i mean you have to if you want to be sure of your own survival. you ncan never be sure of your own survival when that survival is in another persons hands. much less when that survival is in the hands of an abstract institution to whom you dont even exist apart from a social security number.

the collective is abstract and useless past a certain point. if youre not your own youre nothing.

[Anonymous No.12559117]

this whole thread is retarded. stirner is not a libertarian. he has nothing against violence and in fact acknowledges the pervasiveness of violence in daily life. he encourages the individual to use every means, including violence, to assert themselves. he is not even necessarily against "state violence", he is against the state, point blank.

[Anonymous No.12559134]

>>12559060
This. You cannot fend for yourself. People have always been in communities. Labor and resources have always been distributed. Now we have a regulatory system of keeping those labors and resources distributed properly. You can argue for whichever way that system is ideally structured, sure. Maybe there is an ideal balance of power to give to such a system. But social contracts against murder and monopoly require certain people to enforce them and without those the biggest asshole always has unilateral control.

>>12559086
You cannot fend for and protect yourself. In an anarchic state you would be under the control of whoever can make guns and ammo for themselves. Without those guns and ammo, can you keep a garden alive? Can you reliably and consistently hunt? How are you going to get the gear to do so? Can you medically care for yourself and your family? Can you make clothes? Can you start a fire without a lighter that someone else manufactured? It's unrealistic to think we could ever fend for ourselves. If the government were to collapse right now there would immediately be a system of drug cartels and mob bosses running things and competing for territory much more violently than ever before because whoever has resources is going to fight to keep them. Then you immediately have a new government except this time there's no social pressure for them to provide for you.

[Anonymous No.12559151]

>>12553701
Every system is built off of negative consequence and violence is the ultimate negative consequence. Therefore it makes sense for a system of government (the ultimate system) needs to enforce law through the threat of violence.

[Anonymous No.12559180]

>>12559134
> In an anarchic state you would be under the control of whoever can make guns and ammo for themselves.

this line of argumentation is kind of pointless. an "anarchist state" is a nebulous state of affairs. there are plenty of concievable scenarios where a regular person would indeed have access to guns and ammo, and there are many where they wouldn't. this also narrowly defines power and violence as ultimately coming down to guns and ammo, when in reality in most human cultures, the people with the most power were in fact older men and to a lesser extent women.

this of course, removed from the fact that the "ability to make guns and ammo for themselves" is in itself a huge enterprise containing several tons of machinery, infrastructure and at least a couple of hundred people in order to mine the ore, transport it, man the forges, defend them, etc. This would essentially be a corporation of some kind, and in itself be a state. I can't see it becoming a union of egoists due to it's size and complexity but if we were to argue it was, then it would be an unstable bloc because people would be constantly coming and going, and power constantly shifting, disseminating guns and ammunition across the landscape anyway

> Without those guns and ammo, can you keep a garden alive?

Why the fuck would i engage in bourgeois nonsense like garden tending?

>Can you reliably and consistently hunt?

I can't but I've met many people who can consistently hunt and find food without guns, yes. Children even.

>How are you going to get the gear to do so?

As i said before, you don't need "gear" to get the basic necessities. This is just obese western thinking that believes everything requires and obscene amount of labor and capital to produce something. It is totally possible to fish with literally just a stick, string, and some bait (worms, dough, bread). Most people have or can get these things. I have them. Some fishermen in vietnam can catch days worth of fish by simply laying a trap in the muddy banks of a river and waiting around a day, using nothing but their hands and a few hours.

>Can you medically care for yourself and your family?

Nope. Realistically, the modern world's advances in medicine has been very much artifically keeping more of the human population alive than would otherwise be possible. Not everything will be "better" in a non state world and this is one of those things. Alot more people will die of diseases or infection, or will simply have to live with diseases.

> Can you make clothes?
I actually can make clothes but that requires access to fabrics after a certain point. I'm confused if we're talking about an anarchist state tomorrow or if the state never formed. Because although i can't make clothes there realistically is a whole lot of clothes around in the western world and it is very easy to get.

> Can you start a fire without a lighter that someone else manufactured

I actually can, yeah

1/2

[Anonymous No.12559203]

>>12559134
> If the government were to collapse right now there would immediately be a system of drug cartels and mob bosses running things and competing for territory much more violently than ever before because whoever has resources is going to fight to keep them.

i'll let you in on a little secret. the governments don't actually want to get rid of the drug cartels. or at least, they are too entertwined to realistically do anything about.
whever there is a state enforcing a certain way of living and being, there will be dissatisfaction and rebellion. drug cartels essentially take advantage of this. you can destroy the cartels tomorrow, the state itself creates the conditions that more will rise.

if anything , as seen in mexico, the state even makes it easier for the cartels to violate the people. i'm sure you've heard by now of the mexican communities in the south arming themselves, kicking the federal police out, and defending themselves against the cartels.

[Anonymous No.12559214]

>>12559180
If not guns and ammo then it's a means of power. However you want to pass the buck here it doesn't matter. There will always be an imbalance of power and resources and without some system of social contracts you are subject to the unilateral whims of whoever has the most. Guns and ammo are a simple example,

>Why would I tend garden?
Because you are providing for yourself. If you expect to buy or barter for your fruits and vegetables then you are dependent upon other people and subject to the whims of an unregulated market.

>I've met many people who can reliably and consistently hunt without guns.
No you have not. The most experienced and equipped hunters with the best manufactured gear have a hard time feeding themselves without a long range rifle. Let alone killing preserving and storing enough meat to have extra in case of emergency or shortage or bartering or hard times.

>Fish with a stick
Possible, but not reliably or consistently. You speak from no experience actually trying these things. Some fish will never go for bread. Who's going to make your trap?

>Clothes.
Fine. Fair point. The world isn't running out of pants soon but you would eventually have to compete for them if you can't make your own fibers.

>Fire
Good fucking luck. Just like your attitude about fishing. These things are easier conceptually than actually.

[Anonymous No.12559222]

>>12559203
What are you even arguing with? I don't care how things currently are. We're talking about power dynamics in the absence of government and the feasibility of providing for one's family without the help of a community.

[Anonymous No.12559289]

>>12559101
and those communities were not capitalistic, you couldn't just randomly and freely enter into a contract with another individual without respecting a thick network of rules and mores that kept the community together

[Anonymous No.12559359]

>>12559214

>There will always be an imbalance of power and resources and without some system of social contracts you are subject to the unilateral whims of whoever has the most

This might blow your petersonian brian, but this just isn't true. An imbalance of resources and power is not "natural". A look at the social dynamics of hunter gatherer tribes from all across the world prove this. Power imbalances result from a resource surplus and the ability to centralize that surplus, such as with owning and cultivating land. Before agriculture, human beings never took more than they could carry, and because they had to move with the movement of animals and the climate, there was never one place to centralize any resources anyway.

In these societies we see greater gender equality and lower social stratification than even babby's first utopia: sweden

these people, because they've grown accustomed to the movements surrounding them, also never go hungry or want for food. They can always get it. Kids die of starvation in urban and rural south africa, but not among these tribes.

The state is not the solution, it's the problem. But it isn't just the state. The state is a byproduct of the real "problem", which ultimately cannot really be solved. except with hypotheticals.

>Because you are providing for yourself.

Why would i stay in one place for 3 months cultivating some food, maing myself a big juicy target when i can move around and scavenge food? This hypothetical is post-state right? In the west there are literal tons of food wasted everyday. There is no reason to starve. I'm sure you know this but homeless people dont use your money to buy food. They aren't worried about food.

>No you have not. The most experienced and equipped hunters with the best manufactured gear have a hard time feeding themselves without a long range rifle.

Yes I have. I'm not talking about butt blasted westerners who coat themselves in deer urine i order to shoot an unsuspecting animal a mile away through a scope. There are real people in south america and asia who don't have time to play these stupid games, they hunt literally using rocks, sticks, dasani and coke bottles, string, etc. Because they actually live in their environment, they don't just come out to hunt once every couple of days and then go back to their lodge or whatever. You think people can only hunt with rifles? What the fuck do you think people were doing before the invention of guns?

>Possible, but not reliably or consistently. You speak from no experience actually trying these things.

I've literally done this, children showed me how and I caught one after like an hour. It's not hard but it does require you to live in the world as an actual being and no abstractly in the disneyland that is the west

> Some fish will never go for bread. Who's going to make your trap?

I will, again it's not hard and takes a few hours of not consuming mindless media

[Anonymous No.12559377]

>>12559214
>Good fucking luck. Just like your attitude about fishing. These things are easier conceptually than actually.

Have you ever done any fo this shit? Why are you saying it's hard and people can never do it if you haven't?

This kind of weak willed bullshit is exactly the kind of shit the state does and what stirner was talking about. You all dipshits love to talk about the weakness of women because of this or that but don't acknowledge your own weakness anywhere near as much. People dont need all this shit. People need very little. And people ultimately are capable of much much more than they think. Just because you've been beaten down to this point where you reject anything outside what your spectacle tells you is acceptable without even having tried it doesn't mean everyone else is as cowardly

[Anonymous No.12559402]

>>12559359
>Peterson
Not even once

>Imbalance isn't natural.
That's all there is.

>Hunter gatherer tribes
Are a community with a code for conduce and certain behaviors that will not be tolerated and certain actions that will be taken to disallow those behaviors, using force of power.

>Resources surplus.
Like community size, muscle size, ability to make tools, knowledge of how to make clothes and sustain the community. Not all resources tie you down to one place.

>Tons of food wasted every day.
Because of corporate entities that depend on manufacturing and shipping and payroll and all kinds of infrastructure that would cease to exist. I have been homeless. And that's exactly why I know how incredibly dependent you are on existing infrastructure and how absolutely helpless you would be without it to even survive the weather without a community of people through which to disseminate labor and resources, people who are going to require some code of conduct and certain measures taken to enforce it or else opportunism will lead to unilateral control of the person with the most power and influence.

>Hunt using rocks and sticks.
As a community. Who shares. And who will not tolerate selfishness or an improper ratio of labor contributions to resource rewards.

>What were people doing before the invention of guns.
Failing a lot. But succeeding as a community while other parts of the community took care of other labor. Because no human is capable of fending for themself.

[Anonymous No.12559421]

>>12559377
You're arguing with a lot of things people didn't say. I never said people can't do it. But it is incredibly hard. I have tried. Like I said here:>>12559402
I've been homeless and am very familiar with just how difficult survival is without existing infrastructure for tents, hammocks, medicine, pre-cooked food, rope, coats, boots, protection, tarps, etc.
>Weakness of women.
Nobody here is talking about that.
>Don't acknowledge your own weakness.
I am. I'm pointing out how incredibly hard it is to survive without existing infrastructure. I tried for about six years and would have died without pre-cooked food and pre-made clothes and a part time job and someone else making the ammo to hunt with. Showering at the gym was a plus too. That is me being aware of me weakness.

>People are capable of much more than they think.
Absolutely. As a group. With some kind of code of conduct and established lines of what kinds of behavior will and will not be accepted. Where selfishness is not allowed to thrive and measures are going to eb taken to prevent it.

GOVERNMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE

[Anonymous No.12559451]

>>12559359
All these naive assumptions that things will just go well and hunts will be successful and everyone will do their part and everyone will share equally.

Native peoples were one and all barbaric and solved problems with force. It's a much smaller scale, and much less complex, but this is government. Without this opportunism becomes successful int he short term and takes from sustainability in the long term. It is not possible for humans to individually survive on their own. Every single one of these scenarios requires community and discouraged opportunism at the individual level. When individual opportunism is allowed to thrive, collective sustainability suffers. In every society. In every community. This is unavoidable. Government in some way shape or form is unavoidable. If one collapses, power is just redistributed where the resources are and immediately there is a new set of factors regulating the way things are. A new set of powers influencing what will and will not be tolerated and which needs are going to be prioritized over which others. A new government. There is no such thing as anarchy. There is only power and naivety.

[Anonymous No.12559489]

>>12559359
>I can fend for myself
>I just need the willing cooperation of lots of other people who behave in whatever way is sustainable
>Government is the problem.

[Anonymous No.12559965]

>>12559451
wasn't there an author that argued that most tribes are "honor cultures" which are quite often very peaceful for a time except they periodically descend into spirals of violence when "honor inequalities" start getting out of balance, i mean spirals of violence as in whipping out whole families, even people who did nothing directly, to restore honor, and things like that

forgot where i read it

[Anonymous No.12559980]

>>12559359
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

[Anonymous No.12559987]

>>12559965
No idea but yeah exactly. Even if a society managed to maintain homeostasis without any show of force or competition over material resources, resources are social too. There is always inequality and there is always competition. Peace, balance, etc, do not exist anywhere, for any time. There is only varying kinds and degrees of war. .

[Anonymous No.12560240]

>>12554027
>If everything is violence, the category violence is meaningless.

should be meaningful.

[Anonymous No.12560439]

>>12556122
So if that is violence, is me not shooting him not violence?

[Anonymous No.12560452]

Itt
>We need to find a way to ensure our rights
>to do so we must create an institution which has the privilege to violate our rights at will
>rights = the violation of rights
>so logical.

Man are statists based

[Anonymous No.12560484]

>>12553715
>and that's a good thing.
spooky

[Anonymous No.12560899]

>>12553743
really underrated

[Anonymous No.12561982]

>>12554205
Lol thats literally the natural state of things. Even in animals. If you don't work you will starve, food doesn't fall from the sky

[Anonymous No.12561993]

>>12553701
>nerdy looking faggot mean mugging the camera
>some nonsense about states and philosophical bullshit
philosophy like this, it's a meme
these people are failed invidivuals who coped hardcore
look at friedrich nietchee he got cucked by that girl salom and basically he pined for her all his life LOLLL

[Anonymous No.12562005]

>>12554134
>There is a reason Stirner isn't popular. He isn't intelligent. Read his writings and the stylometry is very simple and the thought process is like a kid. Look at the Ego and Its Own. Low IQ and trying very hard to look intelligence (pseud). He uses pointless quotes time and again, offers retard analogies like above, italicizes, dashes, all to no real effect other than for want of looking astute. Everything remotely of value he has to offer, someone else has said it better. Stirner is Ayn Rand tier in the world of philosophy.
/thread.

[Anonymous No.12562006]

>>12553701
Except most laws are to prevent violence against others

What kind've edgelord faggot shit is this

>Mother calls her violence 'time out'; that of me, 'basement dwelling'

[Anonymous No.12562013]

>>12560484

[Anonymous No.12562747]

>>12559402
individualism does not mean selfishness or isolation you moron, it means not giving yourself to any one group or institution.

>>12559451

violence is a part of life. stirner and egoism did not shy away from violence, and indeed without the state person to person violence will be more common. nomadic peoples were incredibly violent at times.

this is not something to shy away from. this is something to embrace. if you need daddy state to protect your well being, if you dont have the means or ability to protect yourself, should you even be alive? why do yo get to live in your weak state while others people and animals, have to struggle just to survive?

power and violence exist always, the state isnt power and violence. the state cant exist if literally everyone has the ability and means to exert power and violence proportionally to each other in a somewhat equal manner. this is why guns are good.

[Anonymous No.12562754]

>>12553701
I thought he was intelligent

[Anonymous No.12562771]

the state is servility and domesticity. passivity. the state is the role of Woman (not necessarily females). This is why qualities thought of as "male" are discouraged and even criminalized under circumstances. Aggression, violence, domination, the will to not only create, but destroy, to take and defile. These things are not inherent in "men" they are inherent in all people. But the state as Woman cannot control people if these qualities are allowed to flourish. So they are demonized, in today's incarnation as "toxic masculinity".

[Anonymous No.12562773]

>>12553715
That you can even have such a disinterested perspective is thanks to men like Stirner, Nietzsche, Foucault. They all agree that the state is the strongest, that there is a viable theory of pragmatic statecraft based on power dynamics. In order to look at the interests of the state with complete icy candor one must recognize that the state is nothing but a tool of domination and punishment.

[Anonymous No.12562793]

>>12562754
>>12562013

[Anonymous No.12562794]

>>12562747
>this is not something to shy away from. this is something to embrace. if you need daddy state to protect your well being, if you dont have the means or ability to protect yourself, should you even be alive? why do yo get to live in your weak state while others people and animals, have to struggle just to survive?

Why I think Nietzsche was an anarchist. The will to power manifest in each and every person, where they are free to do as their whim strikes them, but at the same time if they cross anyone then that person is free to put them down.

[Anonymous No.12562820]

>>12562771
This is ressentiment. Those worthy of serving, i.e. those semi-intelligent ones bound for penal servitude in the state, are bound to the power of the state. They cannot think their way ought of the abstraction, subdue it by thought. They like this state of constant nervous enthusiasm, too.

The state is an abstraction of such power that it enrolls millions into its ranks and affects each of us. It is only looking after its own ends when its agents seek to dull predatory instincts. If you are stronger, be stronger, don't complain about it.

[Anonymous No.12562851]

>>12562820
no, the state constrains you no matter who or what you are. i can't realistically do much about it, but that doesn't mean i can't oppose it and shit talk it for impeding and constraining me.

there are sycophants that exist in all these institutions. disgusting wormlike "people" but even these i think are also being debased more than they gain from the state. and in fact as with most things, an excessive love for something can easily transmute into an excessive loathing for it as well. the really useless ones are the ones that are indifferent.

[Anonymous No.12562857]

>>12562747
It's easy to play pretend you're capable of sustaining your exiatence without infrastructure. But you think this because you are a child who takes a lot for granted. You require a community. And the very idea that, as you say, "the state cant exist if literally everyone has the ability and means to exert power and violence proportionally to each other in a somewhat equal manner. this is why guns are good." Requires some type of code of conduct that manages the power of each person. These homeostases that all of you in this thread speak of do not exist. They are fantasies without someone enforcing them.

[Anonymous No.12562861]

>>12562851
Objectivity is constraint. The only absolute freedom is death. Shit talk the state all you want, avoid its laws as you can (everyone who drives speeds), but it sounds like you are in your own valley of "excessive loathing."

[Anonymous No.12562868]

>>12562857
the state is not a transhistorical force you fuckwit. this is not a debate.

there exists a time where the state, DID NOT EXIST, and people did. People lived for thousands of years without a state, and even then the state did not gain the dominance it has today until relatively recently.

[Anonymous No.12562887]

>>12562820
>asking one person to be stronger than millions
>some guy attempts to be individual.
>works attaining resources for a few years
>buys large tract of land
>farms and hunts it
>refuses to pay taxes as it is his land
>people come to demand such taxes
>he tells them no
>armed men in blue costumes come to forcibly confine him for failure to pay, and to seize his land
>he shoots them for such trespass in an act of defense.
>more men come with bigger guns
>attempts to defend his land from them
>eventually captured
>hanged
>the unwashed masses then think him the animal and aggressor.
>be some guy on this board
>he couldn't kill the literal millions they would send stop this one man
>"how weak he must be"

[Anonymous No.12562921]

>>12562887
You're still living in the moral world. That you must pay taxes to the state is not morally right or a moral travesty like Objectivists would believe; it is simply a function of the state's power structures. Whinging changes nothing, and the supreme tablet of ethical permissiblities you think lingers out there in the aether is certainly not going to intervene and stop taxation any time soon.

[Anonymous No.12563006]

>>12562868
But the community did. Individual humans have never been self-sufficient. They have always been dependent upon other humans. And those humans, even before they were humans, were dealing with an endless flux of power and resources control and doing so by negotiating social contracts and forming alliances and disallowing certain behaviors by using force. The rudiments of government exist in all social species. There has never been peace.
Nature has always been hoatile competition over resources. And there is strength in numbers. However this strength in numbers is unsustainable due to opportunistic individuals. So the people who like to preserve the strength in numbers have measures put in place to prevent the actions of those who would take from it for themselves. This happens when chimps beat the living shit out of a brother chimp who cried snake and then stole food when the other chimps ran away.

Whether its written on paper, filtered through economics, or pack mentalities, power rules. You and I are on the same page there. But you seem to be suffering from a few delusions,
1. That the individual can sustain himself without the community,
2. That it is possible for a community to stay in tact for long without social negotiations.
And 3. That these social negotiations arent government.

You say "The state cant exist if everyone is equally capable of showing force" but who made everyone equally capable of showing force? Does everyone have equal guns ammo knowledge and people in their household? Nobody knows how to make thermite from aluminum powder and iron oxide? A landmine out of shotgun shells? There is no such thing as balance of power with or without organized government. But at least with government unilateral control can be kept from those who would otherwise seize it.

[Anonymous No.12563019]

>>12553907
Silly autistic, desiring companionship is obviously biological, mammals in general have demonstrated social needs.

[Anonymous No.12564341]

>>12563019
you are clueless, human friendships are not merely ruled by animal instincts, there's a lot more structure going on that wouldn't be in place if somebody didn't put it first in your head

there's a reason humans are basically useless the first 3-10 years of our lives