Alright, if I kill someone for his wallet, and I have a 100% certainty that I won't get caught...

Alright, if I kill someone for his wallet, and I have a 100% certainty that I won't get caught, would this guy be ok with it? It was after all, in my best interest.

Other urls found in this thread:


Are you religious or not is really the only question

i ain't

radical freedom.
you can literally do anything.
I agree with zizek however, that in practice it's actually the opposite.
Good people do good, bad people do bad, but only religion (and radical ideology lol) can make good people do bad

yes, do it, raid that ship boy

Where does Zizek talk about this?

He would've disapproved of such a petty act but still acknowledged you weren't behaving in an objectively wrong manner. He also would've cringed at such a dumb thread.

He'd be ok with it if your ego insisted on it.

But the extreme misery I'd experience for killing another human for some money wouldn't really satisfy my ego.

What's really cringey is anarchists saging this thread because they can't deal with an honest question about their ideology

Although personally the emotional shit storm I'd be forcing on myself wouldn't be worth it so I wouldn't do it

Sure if you're certain you wouldn't endure any repercussions. These >>1113256 put forth a fair point though, when it comes time to put up, it is usually very difficult for most people to actually go through with ending the life of another person. Let alone cold blooded murder for petty material gain. There is a reason why so much of military training involves breaking recruits down and then building them back up again in the military mode.

Yes. Some big time real-life criminals were actually despooked as fuck.

Or you could realize that individualist anarchists are a minority, and that you can take some aspects of someone's philosophy without agreeing with everything he says

He'd feel bad for the guy who got killed and whoever else was affected, but he wouldn't try to argue that there's a moral duty not to do it.

At least Marx had the intellectual honesty to have a meltdown over Stirner.

Don't know how Stirner would feel about it since he's dead



You'll never rise above involuntary egoism, lad.

You can coerce "good" people into doing almost anything, even when it directly conflicts their self interests. No religion required.

Also "good" and "bad" are spooks.

Is it in your best interest to live the rest of your life consumed by guilt?

Why do you think someone who is willing to glorious uprising and kill someone for a couple shekels would feel any remorse whatsoever?

Conscience is your own, unless poisoned by dogma. Living by someone else's dictats is no different than living as a slave to your selfishness, just removes your responsibility from the equation. Leftism justifies this in terms of fitting you into its jigsaw, is moral anosognosia.

Being a slave to your base desires causes you to sacrifice yourself to it, it is a spook. Self-interest =/= Ownness; Stirner was against hedonism.

Read moar, faggot.

Nothing is certain, the friends and family of the person you killed will find you. Even if you're good at hiding your identity, you'll stress about someone eventually finding you. Is the $38 bucks you stole worth the trouble?

Dumbfuck, I know what Stirner said, I'm saying it's contradictory and a completely baseless way for him to reject the "violent anarchist" stereotype.

There's no difference between a drug addict getting his latest fix and a pretentious faggot "enriching his mind" by reading a book. Deal with it.

Except the drug addict has no will but his next fix, but the reader has the will to weight options and go with whatever fancies him.

Hahahahaha fag. Read Stirner.