>"don't hurt others" >why? >because would

>>134046296
I agree OP

>>134046296
It made sense when there was still a cohesive culture.

>>134046296
How about
>if you hurt others but end up failing to remove their capacity for retaliation, you are fucked

>>134046296
The categorical imperative and every damn theory of secular morality that's come from it? You're correct, it's not a good argument for selfish, solipsistic people. In this case, there's an argument that appeals to vanity such that you make out as if kind people are better and that because they're so selfish they'd rather present themselves as kind than cruel.

>what if they don't actually care about their identity?
So they're horrible people who think they're the only consciousness that matters? Yeah, that's about when you got the rope and trash Stirners name through history.

Because it allows for a cohesive society to progress culturally and technologically while maintaining it's cultural and racial integrity, something a parasitic entity like yourself clearly has no interest in and this is why you will you be gassed.

>>134046859
why would you present yourself as kind if your position of power allows you to boast your cruelty or if you enjoy challenging the spook of "karma"?

>>134046296
Most human achievement is because of cooperation. Cooperation requires a degree of selflessness and empathy.

There is a reason most successful societies/civilizations follow this trend (i.e. laws, ethics, societal norms, charity, councils/parliaments/congresses, etc.)

You CAN hurt people, OP. You just can't bitch and moan when someone does the same shit to you. That's all

>>134047985
of course genocidal western civilization required cooperation (i.e. obedience) to profitably enslave the test of mankind

>>134046296
I don't hurt others because it's the dick thing to do, OP.

>>134048132
Point still stands.

No man is an island.

>>134046296
Hypocrisy is evil and evil is hypocrisy.

>>134047763
Because power isn't forever and spookbusting spooks that keep you alive is itself a spook. There's nothing wrong with spooks when they're in your interests.

Out spook the spooks.

They will reduce you to the lowest common denominator and expect you to follow their lead.

Can't change my mind.

>>134048043
actually by bitching one can attempt to manipulate those imbecile enough to be impressed by words and principles; indeed the very point of words and principle is to have others do our bidding

>>134046296
Intentionally hurt others and see how far it gets you

>>134047763
Because no one likes cruel people?

You either get the categorical imperative or you get appeals to your vanity or you get religion. Pick one, nothing else actually works. Not even setting up legal systems works.

>>134046296

it makes, you deserve what you give, if you treat people like shit then you have no right to complain when they treat you the same

>>134047985
Cooperation can be in ones selfe interest.

File: 3af0f43271c2c3a8bdde111f389eac610d8160d5334f37a12beb798856c1d5a.jpg (104KB, 1000x1430px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1000x1430px

>started committing petty crime and cheating on my gf since reading Stirner

help

>>134048261
of course there's nothing wrong with useful spooks, that's why we conveniently manipulate the herd - still doesn't make the exploitation of other sentients less profitable; if non-human sentients and communists think they are able to turn the tables let them come forward; still doesn't make piggies being transformed into sausage and children dying in coltan mines less convenient

File: bother.jpg (90KB, 393x395px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 393x395px

There is no objective reason because there is no objective morality.

But if you want to coexist with someone, it would be good if you could mutually agree not to hurt each other because neither of you want to be hurt.

And if you don't want to coexist with people, go ahead and hurt them. But don't be surprised if our system that we put in place because most of us don't want to be hurt has a punishment for you breaking it.

>>134048300

yeah but then you look like a little bitch with unbased complaints to anyone over 95IQ, but enjoy impressing niggers and women I guess

>>134048432
*sigh* + *yawn* = zion.

Get used to it.

>>134046296
Stirner was an autistic shitposter in rl. The basic premise of having legal systems is that you make illegal the things people generally don't want to happen to themselves by account of others vices.

>Hurt someone else without destroying them utterly
>They survive
>Track you down and hurt you far worse than you hurt them

Or

>Hurt someone, utterly destroying them
>They have friends, family, or a tribe
>Their friends, family or tribe hunt you down and destroy you

Men are not islands. Society and order are based on implicit and explicit displays of violence. Commit violence, receive violence. The danger of an extremely large state is that the people responsible for perpetrating acts of violence (lawmakers, politicians) are held unaccountable due to the apparatus of bureaucracy that surrounds and protects them.

>>134048300
What does that have to do with anything?

>>134048377
>DEGREE of selflessness

You can't be 100% selfish AND cooperate. They're diametrically opposed positions. All of our actions are selfish (i.e. survival of either our person, legacy, progeny, ideas, etc.).

>>134048532
>But don't be surprised if our system that we put in place because most of us don't want to be hurt has a punishment for you breaking it.
Spooked as fuck.

>>134046296
>Why do people act like this makes sense?
Nigger if you hurt someone what do you think they're going to do? Apologize and run away? Suck your dick? They'll lash out back at you. If you kill them, everyone that knows is going to be suspicious that you'll kill them too, so they'll want to lynch you before you get them. It's basic fucking logic you stupid fucking fakeflagger.

>>134048525
>still doesn't make the exploitation of other sentients less profitable
As I said, power isn't forever. Go look up Rawls' veil of ignorance.

>>134048261
if communists and anti-speciesists think power isn't forever let them come forward; their current powerlessness still makes piggies ma de into sausage and children dying in coltan mines profitable; of course there's nothing wrong with useful spooks, that's why we conveniently manipulate the herd

>>134046296
When you hurt others you are hurting yourself and your lineage, you need to read the Bible.

>>134046296
You need empathy or you end up like africa or the middle east

>>134048658
>if communists and anti-speciesists think power isn't forever let them come forward
You think it is? Don't you remember 1917?

>>134048563
bitching is useful when you can impress idiots to feel empathy, think of the jews

>>134046296
>Why do people act like this makes sense?

Because you need to uphold a reliable reputation, in order for the people with reliable reputation to cooperate and assist you.

If you act as a selfish asshole who refuses to play by the rules and respect others, you will be alone and you will be against the whole group of people too - which means that you are guaranteed to fail and lose.

>>134048665
Empathy is code for faggotry.

Connect the dots, have a seizure, come out a homosexual.

That's what they're trying to do anyway.

>>134048574
Sending me mixed messages here.
Are you high?

>>134048610
>standing on anything as a principle is a spook
And this is exactly why Stirner is a retarded philosopher for bottom-of-the-barrel invalids. His worldview is an inherent contradiction.
>"The divine is God's concern, the human, man's. Mine is neither. Only myself."
>"Oh but wait you want to defend yourself if I try to kill you? Fuckin spook"

>>134048574

Sending me mixed messages here.
Are you high?

>>134048662
>lineage
Why do you let arbitrary human constructs control your life?

>>134048781
Whoa edgelord.
People who aren't autistic tend to have empathy for family and people actually close to them, like people you grow up with.

>>134048742
Dude, you're high as fuck right now aren't you?

All I said is that you can't act surprised or shocked when someone does the same thing to you that you did to them. And you just start talking about manipulating other people based on emotions. If anything you can manipulate people by showing them that you're better than the other person.

>>134048349
too bad most of those who complain are victims of innocent suffering while those who benefit from their oppression prosper

>>134048898
Lets just say I spook'd everyone I cared about away with the JQ.

File: 8e296f23c79c4c9dc272df2095b32d915063b35027b2eba140b7dd6a68113baa.png (100KB, 944x518px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 944x518px

>>134048261
>There's nothing wrong with spooks when they're in your interests.

Then why are most Stirnerfags commies? Checkmate, spooked fags.

>>134048891
Genetics aren't a human construct, retard.

>>134048817
What don't you get?

>>134046296
Its the basis of common sense you Machiavellian chimpanzee.

I bet you still give people presents or wish the well on their birthday.

>don't hurt others
>why?
>because people will hurt you back

>>134048898
which rewards are promised to those handicapped by empathy preventing them to freely enjoy tasty sausage made from suffering life?

>>134046296
it makes sense in regards to upholding the social contract for your own selfish benefit. If you're known as the guy that hurts people it makes you a target to be hurt by others. Keeping the peace and basically living by the "golden rule" means you're less likely to encounter hostility or be victimized, although by no means does it make you immune to such things. Basically it's the difference between putting a target on your back or not.

From a moral perspective though I agree with you, there's nothing wrong with crushing others remorselessly, it's not inherently "wrong" or anything like that. Like I said not doing so is strictly out of self-interest - if you find opportunities where your long term self-interest is better served by hurting others rather than upholding the social contract then by all means go for it.

the real question is: why did you choose stirner to represent your shitpost

You give them an inch and they'll ruin your life.

>>134048990
Read Marx faggot.

Communism will not be implemented because it is right, but because it is the inevitable result of the structural contradictions of capitalism. The exploitation of the working class is not "wrong," it is merely not in the interests of the workers, to whom Marx speaks.

>it's a retard tries to criticise something he knows nothing about and only manages to shit himself

I'm not even a fukken Marxist and I know this much.

>>134049016
well our accomplices in oppression aren't the same thing as our victims, that's how we can enjoy with our lovers a steak made of sentient suffering or cheap things made by enslaved featherless bipeds

>>134049038
If the suffering of your own mother is, to you, "tasty sausage," then you should do us all a favor and kill yourself.

>>134049157
Your slave morality is a spook.

>>134046296
It makes sense because people who don't understand this (and I do mean understand and not just comprehend) were fucking EXECUTED.

BRING BACK THE GALLOWS

Place holder number 6.

>>134046296
It only does not make sense to mentally ill ancaps

>>134049157
>The dialectical process totally works guise
LOL, why does this shit persist?

>>134049157
maybe anti-speciesist consciousness will ultimately prevail (i don't think so since we are on the verge of extinction and future generation won't enjoy what we did) - yet life is short and we have been lucky enough to enjoy steaks made of suffering life!

Lucky number everyday of the week.

>>134049157
>it is merely not in the interests of the workers

Your own Marxist theories are spooks in themselves. 2spoopy

Infinity.

>>134049232
>implying i have a morality
Nothing here but us spooks.

>>134049344
Because people are dumb, tbqh. Marx was writing a hundred and fifty years ago. College liberals need to move on. There's way more promising modern socialist theory.

>>134049349
Pretty much. I think what we'll see over the next few decades is a levelling out of living standards. Most of the world will be levelling up but we will be levelling down. Still, it was fun while it lasted. This will be remembered as our golden age.

>>134049474
Anything that's not solipsism is spookism, tbqh. And even solipsism is a spook because how do you know that you are not a new consciousness who has just inherited the memories of the last consciousness and believes yourself to be a continuous consciousness, progressing unwittingly toward your own death whereupon your memories will be subsumed into a new consciousness.

How do you know you don't die every time you go to sleep and a new person wakes up every morning?

Now that is spooky, and not in the Stirner sense.

>>134048965
Autism is one hell of a disease

>>134049339
I feel like ancaps are the only ones truly living by this

Place holder number 9.

>>134048917
>>134048917
of course i am not "shocked" when others aren't handicapped by empathy and harm me, still empathy makes them more liable to be manipulated, that's how jews playing the victim profitably works

>>134048132
the strong preys on the weak, is a basic law.

>>134049594
Wouldn't you be surprised that autism is caused by psychological projection.

People can be programmed very subtly.

Free will is a joke, these people really want you to remain slaves.

>>134049627
>empathy makes them more liable to be manipulated
It also provides a collective defence though.

>>134049582
>There's way more promising modern socialist theory.
Scoff. Socialists still haven't solved the calculation problem because they don't even understand capital.

Read "From Marx to Mises" for a summary of this debate.

>>134048995
>if you do bad things it changes your genetics
???

>>134049703
>Socialists still haven't solved the calculation problem
Market economy.

>>134049673
Yes that's right, your retardation is all in your head

>>134049761
So you're not talking about socialism then, but likely a form of interventionism (which has its own problems). I still don't see any new ideas here

>>134049778
I am immune, you are not.

nana nana boo boo.

stick your head in doo doo.

im rubber your glue

everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you

sorry i have to be so childish

im just echoing your rhetoric

>>134049888
He's right though

SOmeone spookpill me

>>134049690
i am extremely happy with having people ready to die for my interests, make no mistake - good dogs are useful and won't even notice others are comfortably profiting from their efforts (idiotic max stirner never noticed we need spooks - like rewards in the afterlife for those who live according to virtue - in order to make up for the fact not everybody is born like a dog innately bred to serve without asking for a price)

>>134049934
and so am i.

we can all be right until theres nothing left.

good night ol chap.

>>134049876
Shush.

Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. Worker-owned co-ops competing in a market economy is still socialism.

>no it isn't!
Why not? What element of the definition of socialism does it fail to meet?

I think you say it isn't socialism because it HAS to not be socialism or otherwise you'd be wrong on an anonymous imageboard on the internet.

>>134049627
The real worthless piece of shit is the one who uses and manipultes the ones who actually have the ability to feel empathy. If you are harmed at least you have the mental fortitude to know that you are the better man in the situation

>>134049727
Not my argument.

>>134049972
>le i am the puppetmaster all according to keikaku
I bet you're a NEET who thinks that deceiving Centrelink is a masterful heist and not the simple fact that catching you people costs more than just paying you your welfare.

>>134049960
Just read the ego and his own, and Stirner's Critics if you read the prior and aren't too brainlet to pic up on the ideology

>>134046296
why do ancaps continuously make some of the dumbest posts around?
starting to think it's all just leafs shitposting behind a new flag

>>134050019
you understand there is no evidence for otherworldly rewards for better men as opposed to worse men (although we might try to manipulate people by appealing to a worldly "karma" since many are gullible enough not to be able to notice the daily sight of the suffering of the just prosperity of the wicked)

>>134049972
You're a grand puppet master. The world just dances at the end of your fingertips.

Or a literal sociopath. But those are rare, and I doubt it.

>>134049992
Worker-owned co-ops is covered by the book. This isn't new, so take that shush and shove it up your ass.

Syndicalism is older than either of us, and it always quickly devolves into either fixed prices (non-real prices) unless they are allowed to fail

couldn't sleep had another thing to say

currently economics doesn't financially compensate originality

capitalism

i could be worth a trillion dollars... to someone else.

>>134049960
Stirner is the deviantart of philosophy. All you need to know. Everything he wrote reads off like a 16 year olds Myspace blog.

File: Kant2.jpg (144KB, 422x599px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 422x599px

VIOLATION OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE HAS BEEN DETECTED

>>134048532
>there is no objective morality.
Entirely, utterly false. Morality is as objective as the physical laws that govern the universe, because it's based on those same laws.

>>134050385
>muh originality is valuable despite nobody wants to buy it
fuck off

>>134050403
[citation needed]

>>134048043
so barbarism?

>>134050431
I'm not trying to sell it.

Your frustration is admirable.

Accomplishes nothing.

Life becomes more enjoyable when you try to get along.

>>134050503
LOL, whatever dude. Go take your originality and wank off with it

>>134050477
Barbarism/war is what everything devolves into. These are the result of no one side being able to be the better man and compromise with the other

>>134046296
>Why do people act like this makes sense?

Because they're not retarded?

>>134050575
How about you suckle on my dongle some more.

What you want me to delete all of my websites just so you can say you've cannibalized me 100%?

Enjoy your life of suckage!

>>134050294
There is no other world. I agree with that. The thing is that if you are the same scum as the person who wrongs you then you can't convince people that you are right and he is wrong

File: pooh why are you so stupid.jpg (8KB, 167x215px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 167x215px

>>134048631
Ancap is a bunch of autists throwing a fit whenever someone suggests that maybe people, by majority, are unpredictable and stupid

>nihilism

babby's first existential crisis

>>134050062
i am only stating that people have selflessly sacrificed for my comfort (not just soldiers; self-sacrificing revolutionaries etc.) and i'm happy of evolution having selected useful dogs born to serve other interests; i don't like "masterful heists" (if i were needy i'd need to be a smart person in order to get what i want; however it is pointless to be smart when you can exploit the efforts of dogs and i'm not naive enough to admire smarts, i.e. the weapon of the needy; i just feel randomly lucky for not having born with an urge to end up like those who spend scarce time and resources serving the belly and the comforts of others)

>>134050351
He addresses Mondragon and Yugoslavia and his response isn't that it doesn't solve the calculation problem but rather that it fails to be as Utopian as prescribed in the 1910s. No shit.

He then goes on to explain why worker co-ops don't work in capitalism. Again, no shit. They're supposed to replace capitalism, not co-exist with it.

He then goes on to say they're less efficient. His evidence is that they don't exist. Funny, considering that they do exist and are competitive. He just says that the ones that do exist and are competitive don't count because they don't meet his arbitrary criteria which are based on 1910s utopianism.

Not to mention that YOUR argument was that market socialism isn't socialism, and yet your own book addresses it as being a form of socialism. Cucked by your own evidence.

>>134046296
It makes sense under the assumption that everyone would stick to that rule, because it removes a large threat from your life and thus allows you to focus more on being productive.

Nowadays it's just an excuse from weak cucks who couldn't fight back even if they wanted to.

>>134046296

>Do unto others what they would do unto you...first. -The Iron Rule

>>134050750
>i am only stating that people have selflessly sacrificed for my comfort
>implying
Soldiers get paid and they get shot when they run. Revolutionaries were fighting for a better future for THEMselves and THEIR kids - you were just along for the ride.

You're essentially living off the side benefits of other people's self interest and LARPing as a chessmaster.

>>134047183

>while maintaining it's cultural and racial integrity

If anything, it's the opposite. We have to help all those poor refugees.

>>134050721
well people have been convinced of many false things by lying people and often sided with the unjust (they even sided with the unjust when they knew it was the unjust, who just happened to pay more than the just)

>>134050438
All of science, which will only continue to eradicate your world view every passing day into eternity as we parsel out everything in the universe.

Neat flag, though. Stay on the spectrum!

>>134050753
Who is this "He" you're referring to?

Which of the two books I'm referencing are you referring to?

(taking a blind stab at what you're ferring to) Mises never called the mixed economy socialism. He called it interventionism, and he considered it a transitory, unstable state of affairs which would end up controlling prices (making them false) or allowing capital to change hands which would quickly end the worker's total ownership. Furthermore, any system to enforce worker ownership would quickly devolve to totalitarianism, which isn't Mises's point but mine.

The other book was written by a former Marxist and he makes more practical analysis than apodictic.

>>134047985

The Roman Empire was built with cooperation and a lot of violent coercion, slavery, murder and genocide.

>>134046296

>egoists pretending to be superior AGAIN

>>134048196

So do the pussy thing?

I think where we went wrong is relying on AI to tell us how to think and feel.

I could be wrong though. AI is perfect AMIRITE!?

>>134050753
I'll add: the fundamental problem with syndicalism if you try to allow any free exchange is this means more efficient structures of capital will out-compete in the marketplace which necessarily means the least syndicalist firms where leaders of the firm risk their own capital and can make deals without having some insane vote at every turn will wipe out the others until we have division of roles between the savers (capitalists) and the wagers. This is why syndicalism is fundamentally incompatible with markets.

File: 1499759365162.jpg (125KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 600x600px

It's disappointing to see that /pol/ knows how to use the word "spook" just about as well as /lit/.

>>134046296
Basic game theory in a win win situation. It ends when somebody gets advantage by using violence.

>>134050820
i already said it's not about "chess" (i did nothing), it's about evolutionary chance, like with dogs bred to serve their puppies; of course this won't prevent those coming after us being unable to enjoy our same standards of life (and they won't even be able to retaliate against the silent bones of those who depleted the resources and destroyed the environment! "karma")

>>134051007
Cool argument.

Where's that citation tho

>>134049727
Actually yes, it does. Look up epigenetics, friendo.

>>134051138
Marx to Mises by Steele.

>any system that enforces a specific type of organisational structure devolves into totalitarianism
Nigger, EVERY government in the fucking WORLD has a system that regulates organisational structure. Take your "sky is falling" rhetoric and stahp. In Australia you can be a sole trader, a partnership, or a corporation. Precisely how many weeks would it take for the country to collapse if your options were sole trader, partnership, or co-operative?

Any analysis other than practical is worthless anyway. Mises can go gas himself like the kike he is.

Free markets are the most efficient, for sure, but pretending that corporations are for sure (TM) the most efficient form of organisational structure is just autistic. There is no theory to back that statement up other than "that's how it is so I guess that's the most efficient way."

>>134051407
>if you try to allow any free exchange is this means more efficient structures of capital will out-compete in the marketplace
Not if they're banned. Shitty coal mines and sweatshops are more efficient (which is why they're outsourced) but, lo and behold, they don't pop up on our shores because they're fucking illegal.

>>134051553
There is a difference between enforcing the rules by which people have become accustomed and needed discovery and edification by a jurist than some fanciful top-down diktat. One is organic and emerges from the activity of trade itself while the other is an edict often attempting to work against the natural order which has emerged. The "organizational structure" doesn't exist under a market system. The market organizes itself without an architect or director. It's only when you try to stop this from happening that you start creating the fertile soil for tyranny.

>>134051804
>corporate structure is just part of the pure and harmonious natural world, as wild and free as the wolves of alaska
People actually believe this trash?

Laws governing corporate structure are made by parliament just like every other law. Your argument justifies all laws ever made as being part of a perfect natural system, even draconian laws that you disagree with, because you are essentially saying "if it shouldn't exist it wouldn't exist, and if it should it would."

Not to mention it is the naturalistic fallacy anyway.

>organisational structure doesn't exist in a market system
Try and tell ASIC that when they fine you millions and millions of dollars for not following the correct business registration procedures.

>>134051804
I concur. I gotta start dishing out business cards as if it were a scheduled narcotic.

>>134052057
>just like every other law
Don't confuse the law with statutes. I know the state make that confusion, but that's to purposely blur the lines so they can enforce whatever they want. Those are the jews you can throw in the oven and get no complaints from me.

That has nothing do with the question of how markets function because they do largely without intervention (or else the prices aren't real). There is no pure example in the real world, but ask yourself how important all those "registration procedures" are if you're one of their customers

>>134052293
>ask yourself how important all those "registration procedures" are if you're one of their customers
Very important because they form the basis of corporate accountability (by exposing who is criminally liable for corporate crimes as well as making sure all financial data is public so that investors can make informed decisions and react to corporate crimes or unethical behaviour) which protects me as a customer, as an investor, and as a citizen sharing my nation with these corporations.

Which is, in fact, why such procedures exist.

>don't confuse the law with statutes
I'm sorry, is one not the law? Are you trying to suggest that common law is the only law?

Poppycock, if so.

>>134051553
As for your complaints about Steele, he dealt with real world examples for the most part then scoured all the literature he had access to to del with theoretical "what if" scenarios. He did what I consider to be a good job under the circumstances. You might disagree, but if you want to talk pure theory Mises does tackle syndicalism on a theoretical basis a bit in his book.

>>134046296

liberals idolize Apple and they exploit gooks to make iPhones

hurting the weak is how capitalism works.

>>134052498
>investors
Nobody should invest in something they don't have an inside tack on, period. People who invest thinking all information is open are patent fools
>liability
Here we can agree, but there are various ways to ensure that through the courts. As it is a lot of statutes actually LIMIT liability for example how much you can sue a nuclear power utility for!
>common law
The origins of the common law were a merging of competing legal systems. Some of the history of which you can find in the book "The Enterprise of Law" which I also recommend

>>134046296
>"everything is a spook"
>why?
>because Striner said so
Why do people act like this makes sense?

>>134052648
>hurting the weak is how capitalism works
>capitalism only requires 1 party consent xDDDD
Canada, have you ever made a post worth reading?

>>134052763
Suing over nuclear power.

You just made me diamonds.

Scope the refresh, you might be surprised.

>>134052923

dude, life is a competition, it's all about kicking the shit out of other people. if you wont step on someone elses neck to get ahead, someone else will.

that is life. weakness is exploited.

>>134052569
I certainly agree with Steele's criticisms of market socialism but I don't think his criticisms form an exhaustive argument that closes the debate.

Yugoslavia had problems, but not insurmountable ones. Mondragon has problems, but not insurmountable ones. Essentially Steele's arguments were that market socialism didn't live up to what the theory promised - and that's correct. Capitalism hasn't lived up to what its theory promised either. We're no closer to world peace through trade and globalism is slowly imploding just as it did in the lead-up to WW1.

Basically, acting like Marx to Mises closes the book on market socialism is arrogant in the extreme. It's a good book - exceptionally good in some places - but it's also nearly twenty years old and it hasn't gone unchallenged since then.

>>134052763
>Nobody should invest in something they don't have an inside tack on, period.
The economy is a lot more efficient if they do, though.

>Here we can agree, but there are various ways to ensure that through the courts
Like, for example, an Act of Parliament establishing legislation allowing the ODPP to lay charges.

>As it is a lot of statutes actually LIMIT liability
That's the point of incorporating in the first place. Without limited liability you'd just stay a sole trader forever because incorporating has no benefits and onerous restrictions.

>The origins of the common law were a merging of competing legal systems.
The origin of criminal law is the right of the Crown as the sovereign to make law.

>>134053057
ok but that's not capitalism as you asserted autismo

>>134052924
I think the cap in the US is something ridiculous like $2billion which is almost zero when you consider the environmental and immediate lethal damage possible. Then people wonder why we have leaky plants designed in the 60s and built in the 70s which are constantly threatening to fukushima our ass (which in turn provides a new boondoggle to profit from)

>>134053163
Sounds like a job for

wait a minute...

>>134047985
>>134051166
Cooperation with the tribe against all other tribes.

>>134053148

capitalism is just a manifestation of that fact.

why does tim cook exploit gooks in china? cause he can, and it's cheap.

jeff bezos owns amazon. amazon workers HATE amazon. but he's rich cause he can exploit them.

>>134053299
I agree, someone's always gotta take the blame.

Let's see how many lawyer fees I can rack up before the world forgets I exist.

>>134053085
>We're no closer to world peace through trade and globalism is slowly imploding just as it did in the lead-up to WW1.
I somewhat agree with the geopolitical statement, but I fail to see what globalism has to do with capitalism. Globalism is about global administrative "governance" while capitalism thrived under mercantile law which is based on bilateral agreements.
>The economy is a lot more efficient if they do, though.
I disagree 100%. The economy suffers when fools invest. It leads to all kinds of maladjustments and small investors lose when they pop while large politically-connected ones get bailed out.
Under honest money they would be better off with a bank or S&L unless, as I said, they have inside info like a farmer buying his own seed.
>ODPP
I honestly don't have a fetish for self-serving bureaucratic institutions. I'd rather concern myself with making sure the incentives at all level aren't perverse.
>Without limited liability you'd just stay a sole trader forever because incorporating has no benefits and onerous restrictions.
I'm talking about a limit to the liability a firm or corporation (or a NGO/PUC/Quango in this case) above which it is against the statute to even sue. I take your point about corporate liability, but IF the regulatory system which allowed such a limitation exists they ought to have the power to require insurance of the level that would cover their environmental etc. impact because limited liability allowed investors to divest, disappear, and make another shell company which actually HAS HAPPENED many times
>The origin of criminal law is the right of the Crown as the sovereign to make law.
You should read the book. It's not that simple; not by a long shot

File: 87984-004-5ADE9ACA.jpg (27KB, 375x450px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 375x450px

>>134046296
Actually it's because morality can be derived through reason alone, and with it the responsibility not to inflict upon others harms that you would not yourself desire.

But, of course, because you are a fucking brainlet and are unironically trying to use Stirner in an actual philosophic argument, unaware that he was basically a Stoic if Stoics were incapable of intellectual rigor and had come incorrectly to every conclusion, you wouldn't realize this. In fact the concept of deriving anything logically would be alien to you, because your idea of "philosophy" is simply to insist that anything that does not emerge fully formed from your animal desires is a "spook."

This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a Bernie Sanders supporter, not an AnCap.

>>134053299
Those gooks are better off for it. In fact labour is getting rather expensive in China, and would have done so much sooner were it not for currency manipulation by the PRC!

>>134046296
It's pragmatism
>>134046859
Kantian ethics are just a field day to fuck with.

>>134053664

china is just a giant shitshow on "how far can we abuse human rights and finances till everything collapses on itself"

>>134053784
It's a kleptocracy writ large. Just don't confuse it for capitalism. The communist party basically require cronyism at every level

>>134046296
Hmm good point. It would be:
>don't hurt others if it threatens yourself
I wonder if that's a spook or not. Because why not just go around and murder people off a whim, unless you wished to do it a lot.

>>134053664
>>134053784
something something opm hack was an act of war...

legal war of billions and billions of dollars.

this is gonna be glorious

File: 1500318310007.png (856KB, 852x641px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 852x641px

>>134048344
>roman empire
>Catholic Church
>Islam
>Mongol Empire
>English Empire
>America
History is just one big ravel of people who intentionally hurt others. It's literally the most driving feature of human civilization, and the reason we don't live in trees. Hurting other people so that you can monopolize resources for your gain.

>>134053865

how will china contain hong kong? aka the only semi-normal part of "china"

>>134048532
>There is no objective reason because there is no objective morality
>objective reason
>objective
I think your falling into the spook of think anything is actually objective

>>134054025
It's already happening, or haven't you noticed? Media controls are already in place. It's being ratcheted one click at a time just like everywhere else. Only thing that might stop it IMHO is maybe exposing the human parts market where they harvest political prisoners

>>134054025
Just to add: China has a huge problem were most Chinese don't give a flying fuck about other Chinese. They are so throughly divided and conquered (perhaps genetically at this point after so many centuries of Manderin rule) that they can sell literal poison as food to their fellow man. It's almost like a society of sociopaths

>>134054113

i'd love to see civil war, HK know they are worth more than those shits in shanghai

Can someone give me a quick rundown on Striner, I dont have the time right now to pick up is books

>>134054189

I hear if someone gets hit by a car, it's better to kill them in China or else you are liable for even helping. is it really that fucked up?

>>134054204
LOL, they would get bombed for even thinking about it. PRC doesn't care. If they don't own it, why would they?

>>134054266
I've heard that too but I'm not going to comment on something I don't know the exact particulars on. Only reason I'm blabbing so much is because I study history and economics quite a bit

>>134053602
>I fail to see what globalism has to do with capitalism
Globalism is integral to capitalism. Breaking down international trade barriers to create a situation of global free trade is one of Smith's big prescriptions. Capitalism-in-one-country is not capitalism.

>I disagree 100%
Well then you're wrong. In a perfectly efficient financial market the investors all have perfect information. Perfect information is a requirement for perfect efficiency.

>I honestly don't have a fetish for self-serving bureaucratic institutions
If you got rid of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions there would be no institution capable of charging people with crimes.

I think this is one institution that is widely regarded as necessary.

>IF the regulatory system which allowed such a limitation exists they ought to have the power to require insurance of the level that would cover their environmental etc. impact
They do have that power, and they have not exercised it. It's a matter you'd have to take up with them. I completely agree that corporations are insufficiently regulated and there is insufficient criminal liability for major shareholders and corporate directors.

>It's not that simple
This history may not be, but the Parliament proposes legislation to Her Majesty's representative the Governor-General, who then provides royal assent and signs the proposed law into actual law (Bill into an Act). The Crown has the power to do this because the Crown is sovereign.

File: 5215.jpg (27KB, 600x294px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x294px

>>134054218
I got you.

>>134046296
the only time you should hurt others is when you can make sure they die

>>134046296

Stirner was an idealist who didn't realize that rules and laws are simply what allow civilizations to do great things through withholding the masses.

this aint no hostage negotiation!

hackin 1 dude is 1 thing but exposing millions to CHINA?!

who the fuck is CHINA?

File: e2a.jpg (16KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 720x405px

>>134054218

>>134054389
>Globalism is integral to capitalism.
Could not disagree more, not only theoretically but historically. Globalism is not even a good way of breaking down trade barriers. Look at the EU! You can't get a giant bureaucracy to agree on practically anything, even what tariffs ought to be on cucumbers.
>perfectly efficient
Neoclassical claptrap. No such thing; never will be. Mises explains in his book very well. Information is compartmentalized, not general and least of all "perfect" which is why markets are needed in the first place.
>Without my special bureau there would be no way to do XXX
You need to be more specific what crime you're talking about, but such a blanket statement is never true. There are always alternatives; better yet more than one method available and competing for efficacy.
>They do have that power, and they have not exercised it.
Ergo, it sucks. But then what does one expect? The corporations are the special interest and special interests always rule the roost. When you have statutes there are no legal principles, only interests.
>Blah blah official history of Common law
Prior to Common law there was customary law, cannon law, ecclesiastic law, maritime law, mercantile law, law of the saxons, and the Normans trying to make themselves "useful" by having people use their courts to arbitrate. Common law was the FINAL act after they managed to corner this market. Read the book!

i'm gonna go back to my kitchen and work on my shitposts.

never give up! if its one thing i like frequenting /pol/ for is learning a lot of interesting things, and adapting them to my ORIJINALITEE.

reeeeeemiiiiiiiixxxxx

>>134054824
Okay, I have to sleep now but you have made a lot of mistakes in this post.

Firstly, you are objectively wrong about the ODPP. It is the only institution empowered to commence prosecutions - there is no competing alternative.

>"but there could be"
The old, "replace one institution immediately with the exact same thing" type of efficiency, I see. Or maybe you're now advocating for private courts, which is not just a joke of an idea but outside the scope of capitalism unless you reject the sovereignty of the Crown and its right to make law - which would be a very silly thing to do.

Secondly, globalisation and capitalism are intrinsically linked in Smithian capitalism, which is what I've been working off. Globalism is not a specific approach to breaking down trade barriers, it is the aggregate trend towards breaking down trade barriers, so your allegation that there is a "better way" to do so is semantically wrong anyway.

Thirdly, historical law is not relevant because we don't live in history. The history of law doesn't matter - only the history of its application insofar as it applies to current cases. Muh admiralty law is not a defence and you will be told to be quiet by the judge if you bring it up. Source: I am a solicitor's son and brother and work in a law firm.

The point is: market socialism is socialism and it "solves" the calculation problem, and From Marx to Mises does not form a comprehensive rebuttal of it though it does provide good criticism.

Good night.

>>134046296
I think it might be because they seem some form of value in people and in turn think that harm to others will likely necessitate the idea that people may have the "right" to harm them or people they like.

>>134054218
Just look at the wiki page that has his philosophy in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner

I would also highly recommend reading the latest translation of "The Unique and His Property".

>>134055602
And like clockwork the autistic namefag from leftypol goes straight from the Communist thread to the Stirner one.

>>134055489
Well I clearly defined globalism as a global (or international) adminsitrative function which I wager would be better accepted than your use of the term which IMO is nebulous and makes NO distinction between what international trade has largely been for nealry the entire history of capitalism.
> The history of law doesn't matter
bull
fucking
shit!
Sure, old laws have been codified and are no longer in effect, but common law wasn't created out of fucking NOTHING which is the entire POINT. Read the book! "The Enterprise of Law"
>market socialism is socialism and it "solves" the calculation problem
Syndicalism is nothing new and it is tacked on a theoretical basis in "Human Action"

>>134055789
To think I might like writing about stuff. Funny that.

>>134054218
He's full of shit anyhow.
Morals don't come from reason. You're better off reading Jung

>>134055851
It says a lot about your mental health that your influences are Marx and Stirner.

>>134048574
>You can't be 100% selfish AND cooperate
You couldn't be more wrong.

>>134055942
> My influences
> Marx
lol no.

>>134055995
You just sat and defended Communism for a whole thread, and then you popped your retarded ass in to suck Stirner's cock too. You're legitimately retarded.

>>134055920
Stirner didn't have the position that morals come from reason. He had the position they came via might, much like Nietzsche. "Might makes right" by the state and religion, and such.

>>134056080
Communism isn't something Marx can hold a name to alone. This simply shows you lack nuance and any understanding on the origins of anarchist and communist thought. Maybe want to do more than read on term then infer a buncha crap you get from libert pages, huh?

>>134055920
>dismisses a philosopher's work with a wave of the hand
>demonstrates a complete unfamiliarity with it with a single following sentence
grade A American post right there

>>134056095
which is also untrue.
Morals set the necessary complex situation whereby two sentient beings can cooperate which is a damn near miracle. If those rules are off by any amount pure chaos results, which is why my first response to the OP was the fucking gallows. That isn't might makes right, that's the destruction of outliers which threaten the functioning of society. Morals dictate might not the other way around!

>>134046296
depends

if we talk about physical harm or property destruction, it makes sense.

if we talk about emotional harm it does not make sense, since you can decide not to get hurt.

>>134056095
>not even in the ballpark of Nietzsche
>>134056173
>claim others lack understanding

>>134046296
Meanwhile
>>>134012041

File: 1488978577813.jpg (128KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1080x720px

>>134056306
Guy's like 16 and from leftypol.
Edgy drivel like Stirner makes him feel at home.

>>134046296
I'm not gonna read through 200 posts worth of shitposting

Why would it not make sense?

>>134056177
It generally doesn't mean anything to dismiss a philosophers work if their work is inconsequential. Philosophy is only valued insofar as it influences, and Stirner is wholly dismissible in that regard. It's important to study philosophy to understand its effects in history, and this brings us full circle to Stirner's low value. In the end, philosophy is really only what a person thinks, not a statute of reason.

If Stirner were born today he'd be a furfag.

>>134056611
You should read a philosopher before voicing your opinion bruh. Just saying.

>>134056680
Get a load of this retard.

I've read Stirner, kid, go cut yourself and cry faggot. Everything I said about the value of seeking truth in philosophy was actually stated by Nietzche too, you'd know that if you weren't a sanctimonious preachy faggot pseud that pretended to read things instead of actually reading it. Stupid mentally disabled cunt.

Kill yourself.

>>134048344
Actually, the only people who get anywhere in life intentionally hurt people to get ahead

>>134056797
>Get a load of this retard.
Yeah reading someone before posting your hot opinion is really retarded.

>I've read Stirner
And what you got out of it is "morals come from reason"?
You're either full of shit or you literally can't read.

>>134046296
That's not a fair way to present it OP.
The whole point is to have empathy and not be a selfish prick.
It's an attempt to not be an animal that acts only on instinct.
But the saying no matter how you frame it is rigid and thus inherently flawed, so there's no point in debating it.
People will on average act in their own self interests but still give pause when it comes to personally hurting another.
Which is why it's so easy to be mean on the internet.
My personal take on "Do unto others," is that it's situational and not universal.
It's impossible for a person to treat every stranger as he would himself because it would be an exhausting ordeal: trying to empathize with everyone.
Also it's prone to some obvious flaws. Namely that a masochistic person who hates himself could treat others as he wants to be treated and thus treat everyone like shit.
There's no need for a saying or splitting hairs when it comes to philosophy.
Just don't be an asshole if you can help it.

>>134056915
>can't even distinguish the person he is responding to is a different person
>can't even recognize philosophical statements from more well known philosophers than Max "Twisted Fucking Psychopath" Stirner
>claims to be anything more than a pseud

>>134056278
.Bullshit. Might dictates what people consider right insofar that the figures which have power over you set laws, rules, etc. To go against them is "wrong".
Morals are not the exact same thing as "cooperation" or "understanding", although what you are describing can very much lead to morals insofar they "meet halfway" as to not tread on each other's toes.

>>134056306
Except it is, although he tended to put it in terms of master and slave morality, and more the idea of "good" being "noble" and such, while Stirner has a different idea of this. I will give you their views are quite distinct, but Nietzsche had a similar idea nonetheless.

>>134056997
>comes to someone else's defence
>"b...but I wasn't agreeing with him! I just didn't say so in time and now it's too late!"
Ok buddy.

>>134056387
I ain't from leftypol ya wang.

>>134046296

slide thread

>>134046575

by a fucking leaf

>>134057105
>pointing out you said something stupid
>"ree coming to his defense"
Sure thing pseud.

>>134057234
>pointing out you said something stupid
telling someone to read a philosopher before dismissing him is stupid?
Welcome to Americana, who the fuck read books, right?

>>134057033
And this is exactly why this might = right myth leads to morals being based on reason. Not logic, but what we think as opposed to something more innate.
I didn't say morals were the same as cooperation, but a requirement. I would say the understanding (NOT comprehension) is more akin to morals as they are innate. There is no way to hammer these rules into someone. They are as innate as the archetypes which form our understanding of the world and give it purpose. The necessity of morals only create them from an evolutionary perspective. What is lacing in your analysis is the millions of people put to death because they didn't share those innate understandings and thus became a problem to cooperation. This isn't enforcing morals any more than the availability of oxygen enforces the existence of hemoglobin

File: sti.jpg (126KB, 801x1000px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 801x1000px

>Stirner believe what is moral is to serve your own Ego
>Can't prove the ego exist over more than an instant because the cogito doesn't prove continuity of being
>technically to serve the ego serving your future self is a spook and since you could stop being any instant inaction is actual the moral course of action
>Stiner was too much of a fag to point out his own spooks

>>134057291
>if i stack more straw men on top of each other it will be a real boy
I've read the books, you demonstrably haven't. You can't even recognize fairly simple ideas.

>>134056278
>>134057033
>>134057311
I think the more important distinction, that would illuminate this discussion - is often what either of you are talking about in terms of "morals" are in fact "ethics."

For instance, Nietzche, was an ethical philosopher.
Stirner had neither morals nor ethics, he was just a shithead.

>>134057370
What straw men? All I said was pointing out he didn't read Stirner, and that you should read someone before dismissing him. Apparently one of those things is "stupid". Could you point out which one is, my dear illiterate burger friend?

>>134051209
No, like the manchild thing

>>134057479
Absolutely not. Ethics are almost completely arbitrary. Morals are innate. They're in our DNA unless you're one of those psychopaths that can hold a job and are scared of the police for some illogical reason

>>134057311
There is a way to hammer those rules into someone, as I have said. Obviously they can be mutual, to "avoid the push of another person's will to power" so to speak.
This depends what we frame as morals, honestly, which is another semantic shithouse as you would know. There is a certainly an evolutionary advantage to imposing some set of rules for a mutual benefit, if that is what you are getting at. I would say that has kinda lost its way with how they are handled now but that is another topic. There is a point where these rules must evolve, however, since morals are not absolute, if anything at all past some flimsy contract that people cling to out of fear of having to make amends, or because they perceive they get more out of following said rules than going against them.
Millions of people have been put to death because they challenged traditional morals and ideals. Some may have done so in a manner that was harmful, but to conclude that the morals were "correct" has its own inherent mistakes to it.

>>134057621
Morals aren't innate though given that they vary between people and ideologies. They can change. You don't have to be morally absolute or relative to adapt proper ethics.
>>134057559
I actually quoted Stirner long before you started charging people with having never read him. You're a pathetic little autistic child that can only debate on false claims.

>>134057670
>There is a way to hammer those rules into someone
Nah. Without a basic set of morals to begin with there can't even be a hope of communication. It's like trying to teach a rabid dog tricks.
Philosophy has very little to say on this subject. Mostly a bunch of navel-gazing fools who are intellectually lazy. Study clinical psychologists instead.

Alright I got to go. Bring back the gallows. Seacrest out

>>134057479
ethics are what supposedly encompass morals into a class, a set of principles to follow for right and wrong. I am attacking both morals and ethics, not one or the other.
Stirner likely had morals, but would have claimed they had no truth to them, that they were simply a construct and of no bearing on him - a spook.

>>134057757
>I actually quoted Stirner long before you started charging people with having never read him
Why does it matter? Read again which post you're arguing about, and try to make a coherent point about what was "stupid" in it.
It's amazing how you can't give a straight answer. Total panic. Being a dummy will do that to you.

>>134057830
The basic set of morals is more a rationale of gain, benefit, desire. It is from there that one starts to create a set of principles as to how to act to insure they don't infringe on the "rights" others have, since they too would have their own rationale for benefit and desire. The issue arises when the ethics, their moral principles, are so out of line with everyone elses that they cannot understand why they are being treated for being in the "wrong". This is common within cultural boundaries, since a set of ethics tends to develop based on the environment one is in - what is seen as acceptable in one area is not in the other because the necessities and wants can differ drastically.

>>134057848
The only thing I said was a person could easily dismiss Stirner without consequence. You rambled off sucking his dick down to its smallest molecular components saying how people who don't read your Christs scripture is illiterate like a rabid animal.

>>134048742
You mean white people.

>>134058077
>you can dismiss a philosopher without reading him provided I decided I don't like him
that's not how it works buddy
not how it works

>You rambled off sucking his dick
Didn't even happen. You seem to be in a constant state of confusion and anger. Like, read your posts. The only thing you're good for is violently attacking people. You can't even offer a coherent viewpoint on a one-sentence topic, let alone argue it.

I'd suggest not discussing philosophy any further.

>>134046296
But why would you want to violate the NAP?

File: 1382632344856[1].gif (7KB, 273x536px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 273x536px

>>134046296

>EMOTIONS ARE A SPOOK
Yeah okay kid

enjoy being a friendless anti-social loser who secretly hates himself

File: bronies are faggots.png (532KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1024x1024px

>>134049157
>but because it is the inevitable result of the structural contradictions of capitalism
>COMMUNISM IS INEVITABLY BECAUSE OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN
ahhahahahahaAHHAHAHAHAHA

Holy fuck.

I bet you believe automation will somehow magically bring about the end of capitalism.
What a delusional child you are.
Your ideology denies human instincts and evolution. It's hilariously wrong.

>>134050753
>Funny, considering that they do exist and are competitive.
lmao
if they were competitive they would DOMINATE the market economy
they don't

File: Steven_Pinker.jpg (2MB, 2561x2561px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2561x2561px

Do these stirnercucks have any friends whatsoever?

I can fucking guarantee you that there is something wrong with them genetically concerning the wiring of their brain. They're pure sociopaths.

People like this need to be eliminated, or at the very least cleansed from the gene pool.

>>134051553
>Shitty coal mines and sweatshops are more efficient
not really

>they don't pop up on our shores because they're fucking illegal.
This is horseshit.
We don't have these things economically advanced western countries because the there is so much economic production that nobody would work in shitholes like this.

>>134060647
1. Yes.
2. No, and I think people who misinterpret them are kinda weird. I mean, the "I AM GONNA BE A DICK TO EVERYONE BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS A SPOOK" kinda people. They have no forethought.
3. I wish I got paid for every comment that contained something related to social darwinism or genepools on pol. I would be fucking rich.

>>134053085
>Capitalism hasn't lived up to what its theory promised either.
We don't even live under a free market though.
Central banks still control the world.
Prices go up instead of down, people are forced to have debt instead of save.

This isn't anything close to a free market.

>>134060875
>1. Yes.
No.
You don't want friends.
You don't even know what friends are.
You don't care for anyone except yourself.

>No
Bullshit.
Anyone that is retarded enough to agree with stirner must be a sociopath, there is no other option.

>I wish I got paid for every comment that contained something related to social darwinism or genepools on pol.
We're not wrong.

>>134061107
1. I can't want friends? Under what conditions can I not want friends? Because you say so? How does my selfishness result in not "wanting" friends?

2. False dichotomy.

3. I would think you are, but if you don't think you are correct in /pol, you probs don't belong in /pol lol

>>134061214
>How does my selfishness result in not "wanting" friends?
According to you, any possible love you have for friends is a spook and you should only pretend to be friends with people to manipulate them for personal gain, OR kill them and eat them.

>2. False dichotomy.
Wrong.
Genetics is real.
Sociopathy is 95% genetic.

>>134061394
I don't think you know how "spook" is used. It refers to things held sacred, and social constructs. It doesn't refer to everyone and everything that isn't me. Hell, I hate that damn translation of "Geist".
Now you must be meming. And personal gain can be more than just "I want their stuff". If might be emotional in nature.

And one needn't be sociopathic to agree with Stirner even a little, hence I said false dichotomy.

>>134061711
>It refers to things held sacred, and social constructs.
Like love between friends and family?
Hmmm....

>If might be emotional in nature.
LOL How the fuck are emotions not spooks according to stirnerism?

>And one needn't be sociopathic to agree with Stirner even a little
Even a fucking child or edgy pre-teen knows that rules can be broken.

stirnercucks are like fedora wearing atheists on reddit that think they are so special for discovering that morality isn't objective

>>134062777
That assumes one must hold them sacred.

Emotions are not sacred, and nor necessarily social constructs.

And he is not claiming to be some edge illegalist, let alone the first one or the only one. I really am unsure where you are getting these impressions.

Person who uses cuck should probably think about what he says before attempting to insult others. Just saying.

>>134063430
>Emotions are not sacred, and nor necessarily social constructs.
no shit, that's why they are spooks according to stirner

most people have empathy in general for other people
how is this a spook but empathy/love for a friend not a spook?

>And he is not claiming to be some edge illegalist
bullshit, he was an attention whore
and his followers are just like that
just preteen children

>>134063593
They are NOT spooks for that reason. Are you high?

Again, I have no idea where you are getting these impressions.

He was hardly an attention whore, and I really have no comment on his "followers".

I honestly have no interest in talking to you with how full of shit you are. Go blow your horn, I really can't be bothered conversing with you going in circles.

File: 1499245626575.jpg (97KB, 415x454px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 415x454px

>>134046296
I agree, societies with the most internal conflict and zero cohesion are the best.

>>134048349
You have to right' to complain. But you can still complain. You might even get some gibs

>>134060945
Muh but it's not REAL capitalism, real capitalism works. (Laissez faire, Irish famine, rebellions of 1848)

cf. Muh it wasn't real communism

Defcon level 5 autist coonfirmed.

Alerting your parents that you have escaped the tard-cage. Stand by

>>134046296
but this asshole labeled philosopher was a failure his entire life, why would anybody listen to his bullshit?

File: IzMtgC9.jpg (285KB, 498x642px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 498x642px

>>134046296
Group pressure. If you are 10 people and one guy hurts another for morally unacceptable reasons they can punish or exile him.

Equality and fairness is a way to make people work together. If I say "I'm going to be the motherfucker who makes all money and you'll have to suck my cock daily or I'll have your eyes poked out" they might actually not agree to it but if you present a deal where everyone is getting something then it's easier to actualize.

So yes, in a way it's a moral leap of faith with skethy enforcement but frankly it's not hard to understand.

>>134049050
>there's nothing wrong with crushing others remorselessly,

God the edge in this post, and while thread for that matter.

>>134046296

It works as long as everyone follows it. Like Communism or the NAP or whatever other dumb fuck utopian meme.

>>134046296
>1 post by this ID

>>134052899
Lmao I dropped Stirner the moment I realized he's just a gateway drug for other, much better, literature. It felt like the book attracted bitter and resentful losers who wanted intellectual leverage. I suppose the same can be argued with any writer, but the times I related his philosophy to others, it was clear they saw no actual conviction in any of the shit I was spewing them. "Get help." Was spread across most of their expressions.

tl;dr : Stirner-fags, get help.

>>134046296
Don't hurt others because it gives other people an incentive to hurt you.

Remember to kill those who try to hurt you.

It's rooted in the fundamental trait of human empathy. Of course you wouldn't get it, which is why you're here, on 4chan, friendless and alone.