/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11697777]

https://mises.org/library/duty-natural-outlaws-shut

>The same is true of the anarcho-Stirnerites, they who proclaim loudly that all moral principles and rights are mere "spooks in the head," internalized restraints upon their sovereign will. To the Stirnerites, only might makes right, and each individual has the right to grab whatever he wishes. It has always struck me as ludicrous for a dozen or so anarcho-Stirnerites to swagger around, proclaiming that might is the only right. In any contest of might between the anarcho-Stirnerites and the State, who do they think is going to win? For a tiny minority to preach might-makes-right makes no sense whatever. In fact, what makes sense, from either a pragmatic or a Stirnerite point of view, is to proclaim one's absolute devotion to individual rights even if one doesn't believe it. And what in the world should stop a pragmatist or a Stirnerite from lying in this way? Surely, not devotion to absolute truth, the denial of which is crucial to the nihilist creeds of pragmatism and Stirnerism!

>The Stirnerite obligation, on Stirnerite grounds, to pretend to be a moralist and a believer in property rights runs even deeper than that. For who in the world will deal with or trust any person who loudly proclaims his contempt for property rights and moral principles? It should be obvious to the thickest Stirnerite that if he wants to pursue a ruthless amoral policy of steal and grab, he could not do so by proclaiming Stirnerism to the high heavens. No, as Machiavelli counseled the Prince, the Prince must pretend to morality and the Christian virtues while secretly practising the opposite whenever opportunities arise. (Oddly enough, Machiavelli himself violated his own rule by proclaiming Machiavellism!) So therefore Stirnerism itself requires that Stirnerites shut up and pretend to be moralists and natural lawmen. And, once again, any balking at such pretense in the name of devotion to truth would, in itself, violate Stirnerism by surrendering Stirnerite self-interest to the constraining "spook" of objective truth

Holy shit sternerites btfo

[Anonymous No.11698401]

k

[Anonymous No.11698439]

>thinking i'm going to read two paragraphs of "anarcho capitalist" spook bullshit

[Anonymous No.11698482]

>>11698439
Ancaps are more likely to have read leftist crap like Marx, Deleuze, Stirner, than the proponents themselves.

[Anonymous No.11698622]

>>11698482

lol if this is true how come the vast majority of ancaps i have seen online believe socialism is when the government does something?

I'd argue the exact opposite; ancaps are probably some of the least read radicals, they lack all the logic of classical liberalism, any of the restraints that nightwatchmen realise a market needs, no impartial legal system to enforce property rights and none of the philosophical underpinnings of mainsteam anarchism/ libertarian socialism. it is a fucking meme ideology even more so than stirnerites

[Anonymous No.11698636]

>>11698622
>Government is a magic ghost and not a form of human organization equivalent to Church, Business


It's a weird ideology

[Anonymous No.11698643]

>>11698439
/thread

[Anonymous No.11698665]

>>11697777
tbqh it's an interesting point, but you can probably be a Stirnerite and still pretend that you're some moral Christian.

[Anonymous No.11698697]

Holy shit those quads. Egoism btfo

[Anonymous No.11698707]

>>11698622
> believe socialism is when the government does something?
Because reality is different to theory and we followed the actual marxists themselves in their attempts to implement marxism, the groups they joined, the policies that came out of these people.

You can sit there all day and say "well Trotsky said these guys weren't realy communists" or whatever but at the end of the day, revolutionary socialism is debt, NEETS on the internet aren't even a part of the actual marxist groups in the world that weild power and shape society.

I can concede every day of the week that communism as an end goal is not what lenin and stalin had in place, but I will never concede that marxists implementing marxist policies on the road to a marxist ideal society is not marxism because they didn't reach their goal or the less successful less connected idiots of the movement claim they're the true scotsmen.

[Anonymous No.11698746]

>>11698622
Here since most people are too lazy to have a quick curosry glance over highlighted paragraphs:
> Keynes had shown that it is possible to use the instruments of financial control to "keep the wheels of production turning while the rest of the programme of social advance is being enacted".
I had read over 50 Fabian Tracts at this point and stopped at about 60 something, still got about 10 to go but I swapped to Facist literature to learn more about the alt-right's basis.

Soon I'll be swapping back to Classical Liberal literature because reading marxists and facists is just too fucking dark and depressing to do for long stretches of time but the least you can do is have a giggle at Rothbard slapping Sterner Egoists.

[Anonymous No.11698759]

>>11697777
Only notable (in the real world/history) Stirner-fags are left abborations.

[Anonymous No.11698767]

>>11698482
No, they just reread road to serfdom

[Anonymous No.11698768]

>>11698746
You'll like this one

[Anonymous No.11698773]

>>11698622
You claim:
> they lack all the logic of classical liberalism, any of the restraints that nightwatchmen realise a market needs
..and yet ignore that for the most part Anarchist Libertarians are merely taking Mises ideas of decentralization and seccession, Hayek's ideas of the wide dispersal of knowledge and Bastiat's ideas of legal plunder and take them to logical extremes that those authors weren't willing to at the time. Given incentive to do so by people like Rothbard, Hoppe and so on that have already done this.

Not everyone can be the radical intellectual that spawns the new ideas, we know that most people that support political parties barely understand or support even half of that parties policies and no one has the time to be an expert on everything from every perspective but that's okay because I don't need to be well read on the modern welfare states effects and the history of welfare prior to the welfare state because people already have the latter covered and I have a decent understanding of the former.

You're just a sook honestly, a disingenuous sook that probably hasn't ever discussed ideas with someone in good faith or played with them yourself.

[Anonymous No.11698777]

>(((Mises))).org
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.11698778]

>>11697777
>To the Stirnerites, only might makes right
And this is where he's wrong. Nietzsche said that, not Stirner. Stirner didn't believe "might makes right", he believed "The individual makes right".

[Anonymous No.11698794]

>>11698767
> Industrial management - the socialist way
> Socialism and nationalisation
> The future of public ownership
> The meaning of work
> Freedom in the welfare state
> Socialism and planning
> Guild socialism
> The position of employees in the co-operative movement
> Starvation in the midst of plenty : a new plan for the state feeding of school children
> The decline in the birth-rate
> Child labor under capitalism
> Public versus private electricity supply
> The abolition of the poor law
I didn't realize Hayek wrote these, despite their writers bashing Hayek in a number of these entries.

[Anonymous No.11698802]

>>11698777
Divine digits know best

[Anonymous No.11698816]

>>11697777
>It should be obvious to the thickest Stirnerite that if he wants to pursue a ruthless amoral policy of steal and grab, he could not do so by proclaiming Stirnerism to the high heavens. No, as Machiavelli counseled the Prince, the Prince must pretend to morality and the Christian virtues while secretly practising the opposite whenever opportunities arise. (Oddly enough, Machiavelli himself violated his own rule by proclaiming Machiavellism!) So therefore Stirnerism itself requires that Stirnerites shut up and pretend to be moralists and natural lawmen. And, once again, any balking at such pretense in the name of devotion to truth would, in itself, violate Stirnerism by surrendering Stirnerite self-interest to the constraining "spook" of objective truth
Anyone have a response to this? Think this is pretty true and can't think of a counter to it other than "the stirnerite doesn't care about that who is external to him" which can be countered with "jail is limiting on freedom though, and therefore the stirnerite wouldn't be able to do anything illegal in the name of freedom".

[Anonymous No.11699089]

>>11698636
A bunch of guys get together and raid towns. After a while they decide it's safer and more profitable to stick in one place and tax its people. The next day their leader puts a crown on his head and declare himself king by divine mandate. It's not that complicated anon.

[Anonymous No.11699110]

>>11699089
The history of how our institutions came about ought to be examined and ought not to be forgotten.

> nobles, knights, heroes and kings glorified in propaganda
> in reality they were just the biggest thugs at the time
> castles weren't started to protect the people form invaders
> they were started as a control seat to protect the local thug from the populace and to help exert control over them
> especially after William the conqueror took over England
I'd love to read more on these things but mainstream historians seem to give way too much of a free pass to the assumptions clouded by the past that they are supposed to illuminate for us

[Anonymous No.11699236]

>>11699110
hello redd.t

[Anonymous No.11699243]

>>11699236
Thank you for the bump kind sir.

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy fapping schedule to bump this thread.

Especially when the rest of us are too busy working and having intercourse with women to do so.

;) cunt

[Anonymous No.11699260]

>>11699243
seething

[Anonymous No.11699399]

>>11699243
you mad bro you msad broXD

[Anonymous No.11699402]

>>11699399
>>11699260
Livid.

[Anonymous No.11699412]

>>11699402
yo mad bro tyou msad bor XDDD

[Anonymous No.11699444]

>>11699412
aye dere cuzzy budda

[Anonymous No.11699611]

>>11698778
Well everything is my property, I habe yet to excert power over it. Stirner didn't outright say it becuase then his basedfilled anarchism wouldn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.11699902]

>>11699611
> I habe yet to excert power over it
Question is does he ignore that for the most part property is a social concept, social construct even or else all we're left with is possession. We have those two words to mean two different things for a reason.

[Anonymous No.11700019]

>>11699089
>>11699110
That accurately describes religions and businesses as well.

What is a Boss but a King?

[Anonymous No.11700125]

>>11697777
It seems to me that Mises misinterprets Stirner's writings as being prescriptive rather than descriptive. When Stirner says "might is right", he is not implying that the victor of a conflict is morally correct, but merely that systems of governance are enforced by coercive power. For example, it doesn't matter whether or not an individual thinks that the taxation system or property rights are immoral; if you stop paying your taxes or seize private property, the police (or any coercive arm of the state) will show up to enforce the law. Stirner's general point is that these systems in place do not derive their power from some abstract concept of moral right or common interest, but that their existence is secured solely by the threat of violence from the state or any governing body.

Also, nice quads.

[Anonymous No.11700223]

>>11698816
i guess to rebut this, for a Stirnerite (ill use the term egoist from now on) all higher ideals (reason, nat law, even liberty) is/are a spook. The Spook is the thing that binds the egoist, as the egoist act to the will of the spook, this is what Stirner would call an Unconscious Egoist.

The Egoist who sees the Spook as just an idea; a concept for his own use has reversed the concept and becomes a Conscious Egoist. Professing Natural law may be in the egoist best intrest but this intrest is what the egoist believes is best for him and his ends. the spook would be constrained to the egoist rather than the opposite and could be dropped as a useful concept by the egoist at any point.

[Anonymous No.11700236]

>>11697777
>To the Stirnerites, only might makes right,
You wanna know how I know that person doesn't even read Stirner? He only said that every individual determines what is right for himself

[Anonymous No.11700257]

>>11698707
>but I will never concede that marxists implementing marxist policies on the road to a marxist ideal society is not marxism because they didn't reach their goal or the less successful less connected idiots of the movement
But no one is saying that Leninism isn't Marxism, but it isn't the only form of Marxism and had internal critics within other marxists brainlet. But yet everyone is conflating the work of Lenin to be for every other marxists, hence the "socialism is when the government does something" nonsense

[Anonymous No.11700319]

>>11700257
It makes sense why people would do that given the people that are advocating these government policies.

It reminds me of when you hear people say in the same breath, or in the same conversation "oh we don't want to take half of your income, we just need to tax the rich and we can fund everything!" then nekk minnit "look at scandanavia, THAT'S what we want!" ignoring that the debt neutral scandanvian welfare states have ridiculously high taxes on the average worker up to and over 60-70%.

I understand nuance, I understand variation and differences of ideas, of methods and of end goals but we can't expect people to give actual marxists a free pass. Although I think you might agree a big issue with this communication breakdown is people staying vague, the longer people talk in generalizations like "we need socialism" "nah we don't!" the longer communication breaks down in the absence of discussion actual policies, actual structures, actual end goals. We simplify too much.

[Anonymous No.11700378]

>Stirnerism itself requires that Stirnerites shut up and pretend to be moralists and natural lawmen
Yes, and? Why wouldn't wolves be interested in occasionally disguising themselves as sheep when it's convenient to do so? Why wouldn't wolves preach to the sheep to be meek like sheep and not to fight back and never suspect their "fellow ram" with the sharp teeth?
>surrendering Stirnerite self-interest to the constraining "spook" of objective truth
Whether a Stirnerite is behaving "as if" human rights or natural law or whatever exist, or not, is a matter of the particular moment, a matter of contingency, convenience, advantage, a matter of self-interest. At no point does he submit to the spook, because whenever he claims he believes in an objective truth or morality, the Stirnerite lies.

[Anonymous No.11700399]

>>11700236
> You wanna know how I know that person doesn't even read Stirner?
Rothbard read more books than all the sperm you swam with had they all fertilized eggs and also come out as autistic blobs of fat like yourself. (what i mean is, the prick is one of the most widely read people in history, it was his passion and he was extremely good at digesting all kinds of material from all kinds of people and writting books about them)
> I recall once sitting across from him at dinner and he started asking me what I knew about the great Filioque controversy that divided the Eastern and Western versions of the Nicene Creed for the Christian faith back in the 11th century. He pointed out that there was some reason that the East was generally less economically and artistically creative than the West and he wanted to know if I thought it had anything to do with Filioque.

> I stupidly said yes. He then wanted to know why. I made up something on the spot about how when the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, this adds value to the idea of the Incarnation and therefore underscores the nobility of the human person. At that point, I had exhausted my knowledge (or pretended knowledge) but it wasn’t enough for him. He wanted to know more. He pressed further. He asked about this Church council from the 5th century and that experience in the 6th century, this doctrine from the 8th century and that debate from the 12th. I finally just relented and said, “Murray, I’m so sorry that I don’t know any more than that.”

[Anonymous No.11700405]

>>11700399
>seething so mad that you posted such a huge non-argument

[Anonymous No.11700420]

>>11700319
>"oh we don't want to take half of your income, we just need to tax the rich and we can fund everything!" then nekk minnit "look at scandanavia, THAT'S what we want!" ignoring that the debt neutral scandanvian welfare states have ridiculously high taxes on the average worker up to and over 60-70%.
How can you claim to understand nuance when you can't even know the distinction from Social democrats and Leninists?

>Although I think you might agree a big issue with this communication breakdown is people staying vague, the longer people talk in generalizations like "we need socialism" "nah we don't!" the longer communication breaks down in the absence of discussion actual policies, actual structures, actual end goals.
No the breakdown already happened during the Red Scares where people intentionally conflate socialism to whatever they dislike on purpose. To this day people still don't know the core definition of socialism and any time someone critiques capitalism, immediately engage in whataboutism in the USSR.

[Anonymous No.11700423]

>>11697777
>if he wants to pursue a ruthless amoral policy of steal and grab
>So therefore Stirnerism itself requires that Stirnerites shut up and pretend to be moralists and natural lawmen
The argument the writer makes is ridiculous. He jumps from the the fact that egoists don't respect property rights to the assumption that all egoists live to steal. It's like when Christians imply that without the morality justified by god we would all just be raping and murdering each other.

I would consider myself an egoist and I'm not averse to theft but have never really been that fussed about material possessions. I tell some people my views because I enjoy discussing this sort of thing. Stealing from people you are friends with is hardly a sound long term strategy anyway.

[Anonymous No.11700429]

>Stirnerism

[Anonymous No.11700634]

>>11700399
it really doesn't matter how well read the guy who advocated selling children was
these traits of "wow he really knows a lot of facts!" and "he read a lot of books!" are fetishized by people who want to be perceived as intelligent but in the end all the books in the world won't matter if you're a shitstain of a man, like murray
oh and congrats to whoever is making these captchas, this is the ELEVENTH time I am clicking on buses and crosswalks and bicycles, fuck off

[Anonymous No.11700794]

>>11700019
Hit me up when bill gates drafts you to fight in his war against apple.

[Anonymous No.11700808]

>>11700019
You can leave a job and find another without having to move several hundreds or thousands kilometers. You can decide not to go back to your church one sunday and stop paying the tithe.

[Anonymous No.11700904]

>>11697777
>unironically using the word Stirnerite
Imagine being so buttblasted that your reddit ideology is put under scrutiny by a fucking meme from a literally who """philosopher""" on an image board that you felt the need to address him.
literally no one identifies as a "Stirnerite"

[Anonymous No.11701084]

>>11700904
Hate to break it to you but Stirner predates 4chan. The article was written in 1985. There's also nothing wrong with using the term Stirnerite even if egoists themselves don't use it.

[Anonymous No.11701110]

>>11697777
Huh? If the way you refute "might makes right" is to say "well the state is mightier than you" then that just proves that "might makes right" is correct, doesn't it? Ultimately laws, etc. are followed because someone "mighty" (the state) is going to come hurt you if you break them.

[Anonymous No.11701294]

>>11698622
this so much, visit eight-ch /liberty/ lieteral reddit

[Anonymous No.11701553]

Discontent in this thread I see. As expected.

[Anonymous No.11701589]

>>11697777
he's right though
pseudo-stirnerites go on and on about muh spooks and muh ego

a real stirnerite will preach some gay shit like libertarianism and make the plebs defend his """rights""" on his behalf
REAL stirnerites CREATE the spooks

[Anonymous No.11701703]

>>11700378
>Why wouldn't wolves preach to the sheep to be meek like sheep and not to fight back and never suspect their "fellow ram" with the sharp teeth?
That's the whole point of the article. They're not doing that. They're more interested in bravado and smug proclamations.
>Whether a Stirnerite is behaving "as if" human rights or natural law or whatever exist, or not, is a matter of the particular moment, a matter of contingency, convenience, advantage, a matter of self-interest. At no point does he submit to the spook, because whenever he claims he believes in an objective truth or morality, the Stirnerite lies
Again, this is the point of the article. Stirnerites must do that, must cheat and disseminate, but they don't.

[Anonymous No.11701743]

>>11701589
>REAL stirnerites CREATE the spooks
Considering that the OG stirnerite explicit told his readers to do whatever they and more or less didn't mind if the spookless world burns, not really.

[Anonymous No.11701789]

>>11697777
FYI this is Rothbard getting really butthurt after he read "The Myth of Natural Rights" and wrote this ad hominem as a response. He couldn't actually defend the Natural Rights ideology and just said to shut up since its dangerous to point out his entire world view is a myth

Just read The Myth of Natural Rights:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=5FF7E7178D88A944D6C35B2B44F5733B

[Anonymous No.11702006]

>>11701789
>author L.A. Rollins apparently destroyed the Rothbardian and Randian case for natural law in his bookThe Myth of Natural Rights. In taking aim at Rothbard’s view of the natural right to self-ownership, Rollins thinks he found a hole in the logic. He asks, “[I]f I can advance my life with violent interference to Murray Rothbard, why should I care about Murray Rothbard’s needs?” The answer is: nothing. There is no law, whether man-made or metaphysical, that stipulates you should care about the needs of Murray Newton Rothbard. Claiming that natural rights demand you take an inordinate amount of interest in the desires of others is foolish. It’s a straw man of the worst variety.

>Rollins isn’t done. He makes a common argument against natural rights by asking,

>“if I violently interfere with Murray Rothbard’s freedom, this may violate the ‘natural law’ of Murray Rothbard needs, but it doesn’t violate the ‘natural law’ of my needs.””

>This is an interesting question because it immediately contradicts itself. If there is no natural law, then there is no natural law for Rollins to fulfill his “needs.” Now, his proposition could have been tongue-in-cheek; but it reveals an incorrect understanding of what natural law actually is.

>Any natural rights theorist worth his salt has encountered the argument that a universal law doesn’t prevent someone from wantonly beating you up. It’s a simple argument for a simple reason: it’s wrong. The proposition of natural rights isn’t that everyone will always abide by them; it’s that rights exist regardless of what others say. If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I’m accosted by a bum, I have a right to defend myself and my property. Everyone in the world could say my only option is to lie down and die, but they would be wrong

https://www.mises.ca/on-natural-rights-the-egoists-have-nothing/
I also need you to give me a source on Rothbard reading TMONL or even being aware of it.

[Anonymous No.11702173]

>>11702006
natural law doesn't exist, them picking rhetorical holes in a couple of sentences doesn't change that

[Anonymous No.11703285]

>>11700794
>>11700808
>pretending Robber Barons never happened and that intimidation and bribery aren't the basic tool of Microsoft Strategy from inception to current day
>pretending there aren't real socioeconomic consequences and retaliation for leaving churches and businesses
>pretending "you'll never work in this business again" never happened

[Anonymous No.11703351]

>>11698622
>ancaps i have seen online
There's your problem.

[Anonymous No.11703371]

>tfw I'm an an-cap stirnerite
What should I read to change my mind?

[Anonymous No.11703422]

>>11703371
Read Striner again you retard

[Anonymous No.11704199]

>>11700634
Those captchas are fucked I was getting them yesterday too.

I didn't mean that just because he's widely read that he is intelligent, I was responding to someone claiming "whoever wrote this clearly didn't read Stirner" about a guy that literally lived and breathed reading for his career so the cunt clearly read Stirner before writing the critique.

[Anonymous No.11704203]

>>11700420
> How can you claim to understand nuance when you can't even know the distinction from Social democrats and Leninists?
I never claimed that social democrats were marxists or leninists, I said that it reminds me of when those guys say that. It's very similar

[Anonymous No.11704297]

>>11703422
Meh. Sentimental fodder for childish brainlets.

>>11703285
Yup. Still nothing like a king (assuming any of what you said is true to begin with).