polpotisevil2

polpotisevil2 wrote

A spook can absolutely be a spook and be beneficial to the individual. If the individual recognizes a spook and puts themselves above it and destroy it, and use it for their ends, then it has ceased to be a "spook" for the individual, but is still so for others.

No, it is not important that it is codified. I'm surprised you have (supposedly) read Stirner and still throw out words like justice, "mitigate negative consequences of people's actions", etc. You realize these are all subjective and doom the individual to communal slavery? If you disagree with individualism (and it seems you do), you may go ahead, and we can discuss that more deeply if it is the case. I'll start it off.

False accusations of crime is a very large topic. I expect it will boil down to a few differences on the topic of civilization itself, but why would someone falsely accuse someone of a crime and why would they be believed? Fail-safes against such accusations are trust, character, and preventing the opportunity. There are others that don't involve a court getting involved and deciding it. It should be obvious of course that courts are also just as susceptible to error as a non-court result.

If you want to pedant and say Stirner is against not killing and murdering people cuz "that's just a spook bro" then you haven't read the man it's that simple.

What are you talking about? Stirner wasn't against or for people killing and murdering, he was for it being considered for the individual by the individual himself, all while recognizing morals, as you want to establish them included, as societies impositions as to whether it was something they should do; and justify to themselves.

It doesn't seem to me that you have read the man, and if you have, perhaps you went through the material far too quick to understand it and are one of those who read but do not bother to comprehend the material.

If you want to discuss what Stirner meant by passages you have read, I'm totally game for a discussion and reading on Stirner's work. I have already cited one myself.

3

polpotisevil2 wrote

I think you read that comment wrong, I'd go back over it if I were you

only raddle anarchists hate democracy

As opposed to who? The reddit anarchists and ivory tower pieces of shit like noam? Anarchists who "hate democracy" have been around for ages and ages, and whatever little internet bubble you came from cannot make it untrue. You might find some hopping trains, dumpster diving, backpacking, living anarchy every day of their lives. Or you might find us growing some food and working for our own sake rather than that of capitalism or communism. Or whatever else. The point is, to say that only raddle anarchists hate democracy is obviously false and disingenuous, coming clearly from your lack of knowledge and experience on the topic.

5

polpotisevil2 wrote

My goal is to get as far away from civilization as is reasonable. I have no goal for the whole earth for the reason I stated, as well as the fact that I understand not everybody wants or will want what I do. I want people to live better lives by living the life they want to live. You could call me an individualist, and I would mostly agree.

The thing about marxists, is that you will find essentially none that are anti-civ, and even less so will you find ones who truly agree with an anarchist definition of anarchy. Marxists are similar to the OP, in that they believe in, even at the end stage, democratic, communal processes ruling over the world. And they call this "anarchy", as far as I can tell, in a pretense to gain anarchist support in whatever revolution they want. I will have no part in a communist revolution.

5

polpotisevil2 wrote

People work together outside of communism all the time. In capitalism too, like it or not.

We may as well call everything on earth "an aspect of the natural world" if this is the case. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand so that the word natural keeps its meaning. Anything man-made is not natural, this includes all sorts of political and economic theories, the sci-fi books people write, the computers we use, etc.

6

polpotisevil2 wrote

What would be an hierarchy that benefits or improves "our society"? I'd like an example. What if someone disagrees that it improves society? Or it affects them negatively?

I can't tell if you simply don't have much experience in the world or if you are purposefully trying to provoke me. Screaming fascism at the slightest disagreement is quite pathetic. I'm trying to explain something to you, and you are calling me fascist for saying that if you call someone a slur to their face you may well get beat up. If you think racism is simply "disagreeing with my opinions" you are likely part of the problem.

5

polpotisevil2 wrote

Herein lies the problem. You are someone who believes in the "will of the people" and "democracy" and don't give a shit about those marginalized by it. Leave the society, to what? The other "democratic" societies? That's a pointless endeavor.

Democracy is irrelevant to anarchy

Let me ask you this, what books, documentaries, or people other than a noam chomsky interview have you read, watched, or listened to about anarchism?

8

polpotisevil2 wrote

Reply to Veggies by MHC

Try to add them to what you already eat. Bean and cheese burrito? Add some spinach and mushrooms, or some green peppers and scallions. Or whatever else you like. Pasta dish? Add one or two more vegetables that fit the dish. Rice? Finely chop some broccoli, carrots.

Just make adding to your existing diet a goal, and hopefully you can experiment from there.

4

polpotisevil2 wrote

What is a "good" hierarchy to you? Reading your other comments, you seem to be confused about what the word hierarchy means and what we use it to mean.

If that issue with terms is solved and explained to you properly, as hopefully it has been, what is your issue with it now, if any? Free speech in the sense of being able to say what you want is perfectly anarchist, but the idea that you can say anything you want to anybody is ridiculous. Don't expect to call someone a slur to their face and get away with it. Getting beat up is far different than going to prison.

5

polpotisevil2 wrote

We shouldn't be punished for saying what we think or for participating in the democratic process.

You realize the democratic process is punishing people right? Those who disagree with the outcome or are otherwise alienated by the process?

So why would someone who is subject to an authority, "democratic" or not, fighting against that authority, be somehow not anarchist to you?

As has been stated by others, if you don't like what anarchy is stop trying to appropriate and cling to the term anarchist, because it only pisses us off. In the end, if your idealistic society ever was reached, we'd still be fighting against your "anarchist" "democratic" process, by any means necessary.

6

polpotisevil2 wrote (edited )

Well, I suppose the ones I talk to don't actually talk to people with different view points hardly ever, so maybe that's why

Plus I try my best to relate to them when speaking so I'm sure when I mention the fact that I agree with them on certain things they feel at ease a bit more but also confused someone could possibly think something that CNN doesn't publish

2

polpotisevil2 wrote (edited )

Stirner was definitely against spooks, something an individual places above and before themselves, without regard for beneficiality and with religious zeal E: Didn't write that out very well but hopefully you get the point

What kind of rights are you talking about? I don't see how rights are able to be used to "measure and prove accusation"

I don't need nor is it useful to explain why government censorship should be opposed by pointing to the "right" of free speech.

A right, and this is a standpoint closely taken by Stirner despite your little mock up of him in your head, is something granted to you by a higher authority or power. A right is a concept fundamentally against the individual, because it means there is some other power, society, government, king, or whatever else, restricting that individual to their "rights"

https://libcom.org/files/Stirner%20-%20The%20Unique%20and%20Its%20Property.pdf

2.2.1 "My Power"

6