When people shitpost "rights are a spook", what are they referring to? Is it simply attacking the concept of natural and essential human rights in favour of socially constructed guarantees? Or are they against that too? If so, what would you see replacing them as basic codes for the preservation of human freedoms? How can you form a free and democratic system of the sort that any leftist aspires to without a basic conception of human rights?
Just curious.
rights do nothing but to stp the freedoms of orthers
it is the right to own property, for example, then the proprietorless can't do anything about it, rights should serve the ego, not themselves
I fully agree that a right to private (not personal) proerty is bogus, but what about freedom of association, for example, or freedom of expression? Are these to be ejected as "spooky" because they impinge upon the freedom of other egos to suppress and divide? "Do as thou wilt" alone isn't enough to build a social fabric, which is what all responsible politics is about. Without rights what's your framework for managing conflicts other than random and arbitrary force?
Really just curious is all.
Stirnerism does not concern itself with any of it's conclusions to a political system, it's more like a self-help book for aspirant sociopaths.
it's called egoism. I don't it's purely for those who are narcissistic and sociopaths, the idea of a spook can really get people to look at things from outside of the context of culture that this spook exists because you say it does and you reactions to it give it power. Being an egoist might seem like you only care about your self interest but it is also in your self interest to have a society to live in and in your interest to have friends.
I'm not an egoist but I did read The Ego and Its Own
I dont need a bill of rights to gather with comrades
Remember that Those trying to bust unions are defended by rights, so you cannot defend yourself against them
Do you think porky and nazis would get away if they werent able to cry for help everytime they threatened the proletariat
I see it more as a friendly reminder that things like natural rights, or human rights are not grounded in objective truth, and often disappear if convenient to those in power.
When people make those stirner shitposts they don't have any other proposals in mind.
Sociopaths have friends, sociopaths don't want a massacre in their streets. What makes them differ from a normal person is that those are only instrumental to them, they don't value their friends, they only value them in the sense of what they can gain out of them.
Stirnerism present the world as one big Game Theory game, a war of all against all, with friendship and love being opportunistic alliances. There is no sublime in such a person, they are ultimately doomed to alienated pettiness.
A "right" is basically an activity the state has decided not to penalize people for doing. In the absence of the state, there cannot be any rights.
not this meme again. fully organic egoist communism or bust.
It's in your self-interest to agree with the rest of society to protect free speech for yourself , is it not?
You can logically extend Stirner's egoism, specifically his idea of the union of egoists, to act as a basis for anarcho-syndicalism.
Same as everyone else. Normal people only value their friends if their friends can give them something, like company, favors, someone to do things with, etc. Normal people don't look at it that way of course, they're organic with relationships, not analytically planning on what this individual can give you and when you should dump them. If a person stops giving you what you want from them, including a decent personality, then usually they stop being your friend.
This sounds autistic af. I act nice to my friends because they're good people who I have shared good memories with, I help them because I have an emotional investment in their well being. They are there for companionship and trust for me.
They still add some type of value to your life otherwise they wouldn't be your friends. For normal people there's also the aspect of empathy, where you will do things for some else to prevent yourself from feeling bad, i.e. losing some value. Obviously I don't constantly think in these terms because I'm not sociopathic or autistic, but at the core that is why people have relationships with others, because the other person adds some type of value to their life.
We're all stirnerists, the stirnerist is aware of this and can therefor be better at it. This is a common argument, the world is brutal, so be more brutal than the others, other people hit you, so you hit them first. It is a view that denies us our humanity, our life that differs us from the animal as calculator, there can never be any genuine trust, love or intimacy in such a state of being, as the mind can never be sublimated from the cold calculations that form it's horizon.
It's somewhat surprising to see this ideology being popular with leftists, for it is capitalist ideology taken to it's over-orthodox conclusion, the marketplace of everything.
I'm not saying people should be manipulative or cold, I'm just explaining the subconscious reasoning behind interactions with others.
It's begging the question.
Bullshit. Descriptive statements are not normative.
They do, we require oxygen, so we have to breath. The normative is embedded in the descriptive.
Saying people are starving in africa. And saying people should starve in africa. Two very different things.
"We have to breath" is also descriptive.
Spooked
An example wholly different from the one I gave.
"We have to breath" is both normative and descriptive.