/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22929306]

If everyone’s unique, then no one is.
>drops mic

[Anonymous No.22929406]

Stirner is the ultimate midwit magnet. His notion of the 'individual' is one that owes a debt to Plato, yet he is too stupid to realise it. Anyone over the age of 20 who takes him seriously is a goof.

[Anonymous No.22929410]

>>22929306
Everyone isn't unique but I am

[Anonymous No.22929415]

>>22929406
I just call him an anarcho-capitalist because I haven't found anything in his philosophy that is in conflict with anarcho-capitalism. Yet somehow he attracts left wing kids who really don't like anarcho-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.22929422]

>>22929415
They believe in the NAP and private property.

[Anonymous No.22929433]

>>22929422
Those are libertarians. The value of the privacy of one's property is determined by the free market within anarcho-capitalism. Clearly, if you have some minarchist government or other body that defends one's property, then the claim to own any piece of property will likely become either undervalued or overvalued. Let the free market fix that. It's everyone's own business to use or not use their resources to guard their property.

Non-violence has its cost too just like anything and it should be determinted by the free market.

[Anonymous No.22929437]

>>22929433
What’s its philosophy on theft? Then we can determine if it’s real egoism or not.

[Anonymous No.22929443]

>>22929437
What is theft even? It's just an act of taking someone from someone. The effort it takes to take something from someone else should be dictated by the free market. The more valuable the piece of property is, the more one should use resources to guard it.

[Anonymous No.22929450]

>>22929443
There is no theft because property is simply what you have under your power in any given instant. Once that power is lost then the property ceases to be yours.

[Anonymous No.22929452]

>>22929450
Yeah, exactly. There are just items and people who want to have them. How much time, resources and effort any individual wish to use to guard or take things from others is their own business. Supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.22929469]

>>22929452
I agree but I think it makes more sense to be anti-capitalist given that most people don’t actually own any means of production. What would I gain from trying to lessen the government boot on them when they will just end up using their boot to oppress non-capitalist?

[Anonymous No.22929484]

>>22929469
I don't know. I don't even know much about Stirner. Never read anything about him except the wiki page. Something like a decade ago people started spamming him on imageboards and that's how I got familiar with it. After reading a few threads made by them I realized that I've seen this smug shit somewhere before. Then I just started applying anarcho-capitalist arguments to agree with anything those egoistic cunts said while proudly saying that I'm an anarcho-capitalist just like Stirner. The more I argued, the more convicned I became, but obviously the fun part was to see the stirner fags getting annoyed. One austrian guy on KC who got a bit too excited about Stirner just stopped replying to me. He was a pedo btw.

I don't like the horseshoe theory too much but in this case, the obsession with individualism (aka "the ego") and the disrespect towards the central government is so similar between anarcho-capitalists and Stirnerfags that it's hard to ignore. They are both anarchists after all. But I guess the anarcho-capitalists become what they are because they don't like to pay taxes and just want to make money whereas the Stirnerfags think they've found some psychological loophole that has made them supermen among the sheep or whatever. What I haven't figured out yet is why Stirnerfags refuse to acknowledge that they're basically ancap. Probably an ego thing.

[Anonymous No.22929498]

>>22929484
I only really know about anarcho-capitalism through memes, but I’m not dogmatically opposed to it or any ideology for that matter. Ideologies are ultimately just tools that arrange society in specific ways to benefit some and disadvantage others. I think egoists become egoists due to feeling alienated by social organization in general rather than anything that could be changed by rearranging the structure of that organization.

[Anonymous No.22929508]

>>22929498
Yeah, the Stirnerfaggotry only works in the context of an organized society. Everything is a spook. So putting them in a spook-free market society they can no longer point out the spooks because the spooks they point out are basically just regulations and ethics. Something that the ancaps wants to get rid of.

[Anonymous No.22929535]

>>22929508
I think they have similarities but are opposed due to material interests. Egoists tend to be poor/middle class while anarcho-capitalists are either rich or believe they’ll become rich one day.

[Anonymous No.22929540]

>>22929306
>Stirner thread?
Based, troons need not join in.

[Anonymous No.22929546]

>>22929540
Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.22929557]

>>22929535
Yeah, mostly the latter for the anarcho-capitalists. Most anarcho-capitalist internet warriors are those who have taken economics 101 and got a bit too excited about it. Maybe a tiny fraction of them got lucky with bitcoins but most of them are too young to even have a job yet. So in that sense very similar to these >>22929406 kind of Stirnerfags. You know, the ones who spam memes on the internet.

I really don't mind exploring either ideology. It's just that when certain people adopt them the end result is like with /r/atheism. Midwit magnetism of the most obnoxious kind.

[Anonymous No.22929569]

>>22929306
Well it's good that everyone isn't unique then

[Anonymous No.22929575]

>>22929306
Reading stirrer ruined my life

[Anonymous No.22929576]

>>22929569
Name one person who is identical to someone else

[Anonymous No.22929586]

>>22929306
Sounds like your flirting with nihilism either way. I think Stirner would be proud of this line of reasoning.

[Anonymous No.22929590]

>>22929535
Dummy communist you understand nothing, I am ancap because I am poor and want to remain poor for the rest of my life lol. Capitalism reduces prices and working hours and proliferates wealth and good living. Capitalism allows even the poorest people to own large flat screen tvs just a decade after their inception. Simply put the more capitalism the less we have to work, I want my happy go lucky working as little as possible lifestyle, and whatever the least amount of work needed to survive is that will be found under capitalism. It is ironically rich people who fare the worst under capitalism, they will suffer the brunt of brutal free market competition, displacing them and forcing them to work ever harder and longer hours to maintain their positions while bottom of the barrel people like me skirt by with ever easier living. Once you understand that capitalism is the capitalists worst enemy things make much more sense.

[Anonymous No.22929595]

>>22929576
People are unique in the same sense that every grain of sand on a beach is. Sure if you were to drag out a microscope you would see that yes indeed each and every grain has it's own shape unlike any other. But let me ask: to what purpose and to what use? To whose interest or acknowledgement? But I would not happen across a boulder or gem and remark "ah, yet another grain of sand".

[Anonymous No.22929597]

>>22929557
I refuse to believe I am a midwit while communists are even slightly tolerated. Show me a world without commies and I might start to feel some shame for my lack of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.22929605]

>>22929595
>But I would not happen across a boulder or gem and remark "ah, yet another grain of sand".
Indeed, you should remark “my property.”

[Anonymous No.22929608]

>>22929597
Well, let's just say that Marx has some valid criticms but the answers he or his followers provide aren't optimal to say the least.

I mean, think of something like the concept of a reserve army of labour. How those in power use mass immigration to drive labour costs down at the expense of the individual. I mean whether you're a commie, free-market liberal or a nationalist it's hard not to agree with his criticism.

There's some good stuff in there. One big problem with it is that the modern day commies seem to ignore Marx's preaching for some weird reason. You don't need to tolerate "those" kind of commies, if that makes you feel any better.

[Anonymous No.22929625]

>>22929608
>Well, let's just say that Marx has some valid criticms
Let’s not. If he had a valid criticism it was for the conditions of the upper middle class suffering ever more competition and having to work ever more hours to maintain their salaried positions, but I thought communism was supposed to be for the poor, to heck with the psychopaths that need more than others, let their rewards be in direct proportion to their psychopathy as they should be.

>How those in power use mass immigration to drive labour costs down at the expense of the individual.
It is the orchestration of borders that causes this phenomenon in the first place, production seeks to flee to the third world as much as the third worlders want to come to the first world, they should cancel each other out.

[Anonymous No.22929678]

I still haven't gotten around to reading anything by Max.

[Anonymous No.22929689]

>>22929678
It’s mostly just making fun of Hegel and Proudhon.

[Anonymous No.22929785]

Language was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.22929807]

>>22929484
"Stirnerfags" aren't anarchists you got it wrong, anarchy is a spook only desired by ideologists / humanists

[Anonymous No.22930712]

>>22929406
What kind of stupidity is this?

The other posts calling Stirner an Anarcho Capitalist are off base (I can see how they could think that given a certain notion of individualism but even then most ancaps aren't following a stirnerite individualism or even acknowledging his idea of Ownness or the unique (self ownership as a libertarian concept is close but not the same.)

[Anonymous No.22931235]

>>22929785
And yet you use language. Curious.

[Anonymous No.22931253]

>>22929484
I've read The Ego and Its Own and it's best understood as a criticism of utopian socialism, communism, liberalism and anyone who thinks the daddy government will fix their problems. There is a reason Marx got seething at him, he predicted the horrors of Communism well before there was proof.

He is a definite forerunner to Austrian Libertarian thought, his "union of egoists" is very similar to what Hans Herman Hoppe and Rothbard want with the state dissolved.

[Anonymous No.22931985]

>>22929415
"”Free competition is not “free,” because I lack the THINGS for competition. Against my person no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my person too must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer? Why, from him I could take them away! No, the State has them as property, the manufacturer only as fief, as possession."

[Anonymous No.22932074]

>>22931985
First actual quote by this guy I have ever seen, so this guy is just some lame run of the mill commie proved wrong by time? I have just been tricked all this time by commie propagandists that he is an epic not caring man?

[Anonymous No.22932083]

>If all X's are Y's, then all X's are not Y's.
Is there an argument here?

[Anonymous No.22932106]

Only obnoxious and frankly stupid people quote and relate their philosophy to Stirnerism.

[Anonymous No.22932110]

>>22931985
It's so funny when effeminate pencil-necked nerds like Stirner LARP as pirates.

[Anonymous No.22932111]

>>22929306
>fellates cock

[Anonymous No.22932366]

>>22932110
>pirate
He was a Daoist sage.

[Anonymous No.22932421]

>>22929306
That's not true. In mathematics every number is unique. Nobody would say all numbers are the same.

[Anonymous No.22932507]

>>22932421
If every number is unique then why do they all equal themselves?

[Anonymous No.22932589]

>>22932074
Maybe read a fucking book you retard.

[Anonymous No.22932775]

>>22929450
There's a difference between ownership/possession/tenure and propriety

[Anonymous No.22932912]

>>22932775
Ones real and the others fake

[Anonymous No.22932937]

[Anonymous No.22932944]

[Anonymous No.22933016]

>>22932912
>Ones real
Kek

>Ius in re, or jus in re, under civil law, more commonly referred to as a real right or right in rem, is a right in property, known as an interest under common law. A real right vests in a person with respect to property, inherent in his relation to it, and is good against the world (erga omnes). The primary real right is ownership (dominium) (freehold, leasehold, commonhold). Whether possession (possessio) is recognized as a real right, or merely as a source of certain powers and actions, depends on the legal system at hand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_in_re

[Anonymous No.22933058]

>>22933016
>Still, property is the expression for unlimited control over something (thing, animal, human being) of which “I can dispose of as I see fit.” According to Roman law, indeed, ius utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus iuris ratio patitur,[298] an exclusive and unlimited right; but property is brought about by power. What I have in my power, that is my own. As long as I assert myself as holder, I am the property owner of the thing; if it gets away from me again, no matter by what power, for example, through my recognition of another’s entitlement to the thing—then the property is extinguished. So property and possession come together as one. No right lying outside my power legitimizes me, but only my power; if I no longer have this, then the thing disappears from me. When the Romans had no more power against the Germanic peoples, the Roman world empire belonged to the latter, and it would sound ridiculous for one to insist that the Romans still remained the real owners. To whoever knows how to take and hold the thing, it belongs, until someone takes it away from him, as freedom belongs to the one who takes it.

[Anonymous No.22934896]

>>22933058
>According to Roman law
Show me this Roman thing.
Which propriety they hold?
Or is it gone?

[Anonymous No.22934903]

>>22932366
>>22932944
Kek

[Jon Kolner No.22934909]

>>22929306
This thread likely has more words in it than the entire collected works of Max Stirner.

[Anonymous No.22935366]

>>22929306
Ah yes, the eternal Syndrome argument.