Egalitarian ethics and death-drive

Difference doesn't necessarily translate into inequality. A toad and an elephant are clearly different in many ways, but I challenge you to prove which one is superior.

Superiority and inferiority are meaningless without a frame of reference, meaning they are entirely circumstantial and in no way absolute. This being the case, any kind of entrenched hierarchy outside of a specific situation has no real logical basis.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)

- murray rothbard

rly make u think

PURE

U

R

E

...

By idealism he is referring to the concept that society is shaped primarily through ideology and not material economic forces, which is the Marxist viewpoint.

no sweetie, that's just a variant of Hegelianism, Marxism inverted that view and removed "Geist" and replaced it with "dialectic materialism" – which makes it totally unworkable, but that's another discussion.

We’ve had all kind from pol recently but its been a while since we got a pseudointellectual of such magnitude

Equality is not the same thing as sameness.

I can't believe so many "intellectuals" still struggle with this very simple notion.

Dude Murray Rothbard is the dude who advocated for a "free baby market" for selling kids. If they were deformed and didn't sell they died. Gtfo with that d.egenerate shit

of course he had flaws, but some of his quotes are relevant.

Everyone on the right is politically illiterate and approaches politics without the context of past political theory

economic "equality"
What did he mean by this?

Because even equal opportunity is an unreal idealism.

You know this has nothing to do equality but only of long term consequences to this mode of production right

...

please at least try

Capitalism surely, cannot be as evil as we are to believe Communism is

Can it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

For a majority of human existence, communal living was the default. This does not mean equality, it, communal does not and never has equaled equality.

"To each according to his ability, and need"

This is material, not ideological.

Anthropologists have long realized that life in the civilizing areas between the paleolithic and neolithic are shown to have evidence that the communal living was indeed the default, into a changing world.

If anything, we are deceiving ourselves these aren't the facts. With no known natural predators anymore besides ourselves in vast enough quantities, that are not diseases and frequent natural disasters, we are free to believe what is natural, and what is not.

But the idea this Capitalism is the natural order of things is a delusion. Capitalism is a new phenomenon, imposing natural selection on the individual population, a kind of hush hush Social Darwinism.

It's what makes Capitalism so able to be intgerated by fascism.

But ultimately one cannot deny that we are headed towards a dangerous path, ecologically, climatically, we are headed into a world where community is our saving grace. But the division of labor, of ourselves, between identities and class, is what keeps us in line and is the dominant form of power. But it is this very ideology that lead us here, to this future catastrophic state.

Sooner or later, over time, over the history of the 21st century, you will realize Hierarchy is not the order of aesthetic superiority, but division of who does what, when, and how.

In short, for a majority of human time on this planet, we showed ourselves our true "human nature", and it was nothing like the human nature passed around so easily by reactionaries. It is an animal one, a social one, a communal one. Homo Homo Sapiens are communal animals.

have you read Evola?

what is human nature to u?

I got past the thirty page mark and realized it was demolished for a reason

double nigger sjw faggot

Changing dynamics in how we interact from regular communal animals to ideological power telling whatever it wants about human nature, from original sin to race ought to be shut out. The fact is these ideologies just do not match with the future we live in, so adaptation is necessary. If there is no way to secure a "white majority" in the next 500 years, when all but your politics has largely become forgotten

What are you doing trying to preserve the white race this century if it is all but inevitable climactic, material, social, and forces are all shifting the human nature you seek to ignore and replace, the need to migrate to the material excess. In fact all life does this, from the most simple protozoa to the most complex multi-cellular life, fish to men.

hmm maybe start with the Greeks if Evola is too hard.

you haven't said what is essential to human nature yet so your definition is lacking.

Sigh, all those fives, wasted on Evola

Maybe leave /lit/ if jokes are so hard

I have

You have to be of the world if you're claiming that social structures are totally out of our control. If the idea is that the world is foreign to us, and our essence is removed (in some anti-materialist gnostic kind of fashion), then a combination of human essence with human essence should be capable of forming any number of relationships.

Your argument is we should conform to the world, which actually seems pretty anti-spiritual. Christians are the culmination of the spiritual movement of the ancients (for the German idealists). They rejected the world completely for the spiritual. To claim we should have peace and equality for the sake of nurturing the human spirit is very much in the tradition of Christianity. Your nazi flag is strange in combination with a Christian message, since the Nazis were intensely materialist with their worship of their race, their land, the physical representation of their culture etc.

At least become a tradical, shit.

And just as an addition, the crusade to "make all equal" is an attempt at justice. Good works are a manifestation of salvation. You are not saved through good works, but good works realize the truth of your faith.

As you probably know:

James 2:14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

You can both accept the world as it is in this moment, in the sense that you only look to salvation, but move against it BECAUSE you are saved, BECAUSE this world is unjust and fallen. It may be futile, but you also do not fear death or destitution, because you know God has saved you.

I didn't read anything in this thread because I didn't want to sift through posturing, but this is actually pretty true, at least for the left which is attracted to radicalism. There are heaps of antinatalists here. If you bring up the low birthrate you're told it's a good thing that mankind is going extinct, so industrial childlessness should not only be accepted but even accelerated.

A lot of people here seem attracted to futility. They want to wipe away the achievement of others and reach parity with them, either through death or social and economic transfiguration. They use politics and philosophy as a means of minimizing and ignoring their turbulent or excruciatingly mediocre lives, of assuring themselves at least that, even if nothing happens politically, personal failure is fine because personal victory is meaningless.

never existed, for fucks sake. As an ex-Christian (who is rather well versed in the bibble) I challenge you to give us examples of this!

You have a Western-Buddhist reading of Christianity, where every "excess" is neutralized. Good job. Read fucking pdf related, you mong.

What you should maybe try to understand is that democracy is the only way to get to a true ethical meritocracy and have some semblance of moral hierarchies.

In my view socialism was always about radical democracy as a means of governing ourselves, not about equality.

On a more meme-y note I must confess that once I began engaging with more right-wing/anti-communist tought I began taking responsability for my shitty ,hateful life and I've began facing very scary and disgusting truths about myself.

I've also realized a lot of leftists are very anti-market and barely understand the importance of
trade.

disgustan

disgustan

disgustan

...

...

...

Biotruth right on the title. How nice.
Either strawmen or just plain stupidity.

On the other hand, mankind's ultimate fate will be either socialism or extinction, so there's my Eros and Thanatos.

Rickrolled again!

really takes the old noggin' for a joggin'

This is some elaborate shitposting from his part, I have to admit.