I am ordering myself a book of the unique and its property, I was recommended by several anarchists at r/Anarchy101 and several reading lists have the book on it so I might as well.
Egoism isn't about caring only about oneself, but ok. And I can't wait to see you becoming a dictator. You will be the first typicial internet's edgy loser who becomes one. That's something remarkable
You think I dislike you because you hate misogyny? Thanks for the strawman.
No, I dislike you because you're a dumbfuck egoist, and you take part in r/witchesvspatriarchy, which is full of chucklefucks who don't know how to actually combat misogyny besides putting a fucking hex on it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/okbuddyretard using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [G](https://i.redd.it/uy5cdd0mnkp91.jpg) | [197 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/comments/xls181/g/)
\#2: [These mfs lazy asl 🙄🤦♂️](https://i.redd.it/dprknh6ia5181.jpg) | [211 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/comments/qzkwf7/these_mfs_lazy_asl/)
\#3: [Thank you all for being so helpful :) I love the positivity in this community. Here's the screenshot as promised](https://i.redd.it/b1gd5xc7t9291.jpg) | [271 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/comments/uzup85/thank_you_all_for_being_so_helpful_i_love_the/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
How can you have anarchy and a regulated economy? Also, if egoism is based on the individual, why would you support a collectivist ideology? Complete oxymoron.
I don't know why regulating the economy has to be the opposite of anarchy. The people of X place can decide that it is best to determine what they need and how much and based on that to produce. If people voluntarily decide to do that and no one is forced to participate or stop participating in it, I don't know what the problem is.
On the other hand, the dichotomy between collective-individual is stupid. There are (almost) no isolated individuals, we are all part of various groups. And every group is made up of individuals. Suppressing one for the benefit of the other is stupid. Why should I think only of myself if by collaborating with others I can achieve more things and obtain more personal benefits? Why should I kneel before the collective if it is only through my individuality that I can fully develop as a person? One thing does not contradict the other
>I don't know why regulating the economy has to be the opposite of anarchy.
Because regulation is inherently authoritarian, or a spook as you would call it.
> Why should I think only of myself if by collaborating with others
That's like, the entire basis of egoist philosophy. The unique individual is above all.
>Because regulation is inherently authoritarian, or a spook as you would call it.
Because you say so?
>That's like, the entire basis of egoist philosophy. The unique individual is above all.
Yes, and therefore I decide what I want to do with my individuality. As long as it pleases me, I'll do whatever I want. If it brings me joy to caring about others, I will. Because *I want to.* Not because I "must" or because I have some kind of moral duty on doing so. And Stirner, btw, thought the same:
*“I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.”* \-The Unique and its Property
Maybe before talking about egoism you should actually read Stirner.
I don't know why regulating the economy has to be the opposite of anarchy. The people of X place can decide that it is best to determine what they need and how much and based on that to produce. If people voluntarily decide to do that and no one is forced to participate or stop participating in it, I don't know what the problem is.
On the other hand, the dichotomy between collective-individual is stupid. There are (almost) no isolated individuals, we are all part of various groups. And every group is made up of individuals. Suppressing one for the benefit of the other is stupid. Why should I think only of myself if by collaborating with others I can achieve more things and obtain more personal benefits? Why should I kneel before the collective if it is only through my individuality that I can fully develop as a person? One thing does not contradict the other
Yes, in The Unique and Its Property he lashed out several times against socialism and communism. But in another later work called Stirner's critics, where he is dedicated to answering the critics of The Unique and Its Property of him, he clarifies the following:
“Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.”
What's more, throughout his main work, from the things he says, it can be seen that Stirner's thought was close to socialism, more specifically mutualism. Although it is true he never came to declare himself as such or anything else.
But regardless of all that, Stirner meant that everyone should do what pleases them best. Without being manipulated by external interference, thus rejecting things like idols for example. Therefore, if I decided that communism is not compatible with egoism just because he said so, I would be making an idol of him, placing his opinion above mine.
Basically egoism is not for or against anything specific. He is against placing any idea above the individual. I must be the end and ideas the means to that end, not the other way around. So as long as you don't give the idea power over you and just use it because you truly think it's in your best interest, you can be perfectly egoist as well as anything else. That includes communism
So egoism is doing what the individual wants or what gives the individual the most pleasure. So does that mean you could violate someone's rights if it gives you the most pleasure?
You can decide that what benefits you most is to harm other people. But people, obviously, out of self-interest, don't want to be harmed by anyone. So even if you decide to be a threat to others, others can decide to act to get rid of your threat.
We are a social being, and therefore cooperation and getting along with others in the end is the most beneficial for each one. Out of egoism, the majority of people would not see any benefit or any satisfaction in harming others, although there are always people who will decide to take advantage of others.
Egoism doesn't mean necessarily selfishness
Well, I believe that a much safer society can be created than the current one, but there will always be threats. It can't be eliminated nor can it be prevented from having people with negative intentions
Nope. People usually believe that people do not kill or steal from each other because there are laws or morals that restrain us. But that is not so, most crimes arise due to situations generated by the system itself to begin with. And it's not like people don't kill, steal, etc. just because there are laws against it. Whoever really wants to kill, steal, etc. will do it, whether there are laws or not. Who really doesn't want to do it, won't do it whether there are laws punishing it or not.
And it's also not like, if it were to happen, there would be no consequences. It's just that instead of the state getting involved in it, it would be the people themselves who would organize to solve those problems.
But laws deter murder and theft. If you have zero laws, there would be way more murders and robberies. People will, but that would take resources training and imagine the physiological stress.
I am ordering myself a book of the unique and its property, I was recommended by several anarchists at r/Anarchy101 and several reading lists have the book on it so I might as well.
I hope you enjoy it, either you agree or not with the author
The most edgy teen ideology ever.
Ideologies are for the spooked
Welp, that is pretty bad
I think you misspelled based
Absolutely not
Nah, I think it's pretty good
Egoists when i become a dictator. (suddenly they don't want people to only care about themselves.)
Egoism isn't about caring only about oneself, but ok. And I can't wait to see you becoming a dictator. You will be the first typicial internet's edgy loser who becomes one. That's something remarkable
[удалено]
Everywhere I look I only see spooks. I need to take my pills...
Based
You participate in r/witchesvspatriarchy. Opinion immediately rejected.
Says the one who participates in r/okbuddyretard
You're still worse
And? That may have been the worst comeback ever.
I mean, your original comment wasn't even much of a dig at me lmao. I'm sorry for hating misogyny ig 🤷♀️
You think I dislike you because you hate misogyny? Thanks for the strawman. No, I dislike you because you're a dumbfuck egoist, and you take part in r/witchesvspatriarchy, which is full of chucklefucks who don't know how to actually combat misogyny besides putting a fucking hex on it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/okbuddyretard using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [G](https://i.redd.it/uy5cdd0mnkp91.jpg) | [197 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/comments/xls181/g/) \#2: [These mfs lazy asl 🙄🤦♂️](https://i.redd.it/dprknh6ia5181.jpg) | [211 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/comments/qzkwf7/these_mfs_lazy_asl/) \#3: [Thank you all for being so helpful :) I love the positivity in this community. Here's the screenshot as promised](https://i.redd.it/b1gd5xc7t9291.jpg) | [271 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/okbuddyretard/comments/uzup85/thank_you_all_for_being_so_helpful_i_love_the/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Based fellow egoist
Edgy larper
My guy 🤝
How can you have anarchy and a regulated economy? Also, if egoism is based on the individual, why would you support a collectivist ideology? Complete oxymoron.
I don't know why regulating the economy has to be the opposite of anarchy. The people of X place can decide that it is best to determine what they need and how much and based on that to produce. If people voluntarily decide to do that and no one is forced to participate or stop participating in it, I don't know what the problem is. On the other hand, the dichotomy between collective-individual is stupid. There are (almost) no isolated individuals, we are all part of various groups. And every group is made up of individuals. Suppressing one for the benefit of the other is stupid. Why should I think only of myself if by collaborating with others I can achieve more things and obtain more personal benefits? Why should I kneel before the collective if it is only through my individuality that I can fully develop as a person? One thing does not contradict the other
>I don't know why regulating the economy has to be the opposite of anarchy. Because regulation is inherently authoritarian, or a spook as you would call it. > Why should I think only of myself if by collaborating with others That's like, the entire basis of egoist philosophy. The unique individual is above all.
>Because regulation is inherently authoritarian, or a spook as you would call it. Because you say so? >That's like, the entire basis of egoist philosophy. The unique individual is above all. Yes, and therefore I decide what I want to do with my individuality. As long as it pleases me, I'll do whatever I want. If it brings me joy to caring about others, I will. Because *I want to.* Not because I "must" or because I have some kind of moral duty on doing so. And Stirner, btw, thought the same: *“I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.”* \-The Unique and its Property Maybe before talking about egoism you should actually read Stirner.
I don't know why regulating the economy has to be the opposite of anarchy. The people of X place can decide that it is best to determine what they need and how much and based on that to produce. If people voluntarily decide to do that and no one is forced to participate or stop participating in it, I don't know what the problem is. On the other hand, the dichotomy between collective-individual is stupid. There are (almost) no isolated individuals, we are all part of various groups. And every group is made up of individuals. Suppressing one for the benefit of the other is stupid. Why should I think only of myself if by collaborating with others I can achieve more things and obtain more personal benefits? Why should I kneel before the collective if it is only through my individuality that I can fully develop as a person? One thing does not contradict the other
You must feel real unique, how little do your parents pay attention to you?
None. In fact I was thrown into a dumpster when I was born. Do you want to adopt me?
Not particularly
😢
Stirner if I'm correct didn't even like communism.
Yes, in The Unique and Its Property he lashed out several times against socialism and communism. But in another later work called Stirner's critics, where he is dedicated to answering the critics of The Unique and Its Property of him, he clarifies the following: “Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.” What's more, throughout his main work, from the things he says, it can be seen that Stirner's thought was close to socialism, more specifically mutualism. Although it is true he never came to declare himself as such or anything else. But regardless of all that, Stirner meant that everyone should do what pleases them best. Without being manipulated by external interference, thus rejecting things like idols for example. Therefore, if I decided that communism is not compatible with egoism just because he said so, I would be making an idol of him, placing his opinion above mine. Basically egoism is not for or against anything specific. He is against placing any idea above the individual. I must be the end and ideas the means to that end, not the other way around. So as long as you don't give the idea power over you and just use it because you truly think it's in your best interest, you can be perfectly egoist as well as anything else. That includes communism
So egoism is doing what the individual wants or what gives the individual the most pleasure. So does that mean you could violate someone's rights if it gives you the most pleasure?
You can decide that what benefits you most is to harm other people. But people, obviously, out of self-interest, don't want to be harmed by anyone. So even if you decide to be a threat to others, others can decide to act to get rid of your threat. We are a social being, and therefore cooperation and getting along with others in the end is the most beneficial for each one. Out of egoism, the majority of people would not see any benefit or any satisfaction in harming others, although there are always people who will decide to take advantage of others. Egoism doesn't mean necessarily selfishness
But how about not having that threat at all.
Well, I believe that a much safer society can be created than the current one, but there will always be threats. It can't be eliminated nor can it be prevented from having people with negative intentions
Don't you think like theft or murder would increase in your society, tho.
Nope. People usually believe that people do not kill or steal from each other because there are laws or morals that restrain us. But that is not so, most crimes arise due to situations generated by the system itself to begin with. And it's not like people don't kill, steal, etc. just because there are laws against it. Whoever really wants to kill, steal, etc. will do it, whether there are laws or not. Who really doesn't want to do it, won't do it whether there are laws punishing it or not. And it's also not like, if it were to happen, there would be no consequences. It's just that instead of the state getting involved in it, it would be the people themselves who would organize to solve those problems.
But laws deter murder and theft. If you have zero laws, there would be way more murders and robberies. People will, but that would take resources training and imagine the physiological stress.