"inequality is good" wall of autism

There's been one for the last 44 years.

this.

I've pointed this out before, but the way the World Bank calculated poverty, small farmers driven off their land and forced to work for $2 a day in a factory were "rescued from poverty"

...

this tbh

The strong don't need protection from the weak?

Nietzsche thought the weak would always inevitably BTFO the strong because of ressentiment.

Then give data.

Is this guy serious?

No he did not. He thought that they were resentful and petty.

The strong don't need protection from the weak, the weak need protection from the strong. That's the purpose of a constitution.

You know nothing of Nietzsche.

lol wow nietzsche is kind of a faggot

Marx was the one who thought that the weak would rise up against the strong, Nietzsche laughed at this notion. Nietzsche had a cyclical understanding of history, Marx had a linear one. Stop putting words in the mouths of men you know nothing about.

Personally I think the real faggot is Marx. Nietzsche took no survivors.

lol wot? The constitution is there to ensure equal rights for all, not theft.

Nietzche was an angsty faggot who complains about the fall of culture and muh degeneceracy. Basically an alt-righter who doesn't care about race

The strong hurt the weak all the time, what the fuck are you getting at? Equal rights is just a way to shut the masses up, the strong don't give a fuck about equality or rights.

Nietzsche is the Stirner of the weak.

Alt-right is for apologetic cuckolds who don't want to go full nation.al socialist. The fall and degeneration of western culture is pretty obvious for all to see, don't know why you would scoff at it. Nietzsche definitely cared about race and saw himself as polish nobility. He mentioned the strong race of Northern Europe all the time, aka the Hyperboreans. Why don't you actually read his works before you open your mouth?

Nietzsche the prophet of the Übermensch.

t. Übermensch

Hardly anything at all has changed in 2000 years of "Western culture."

Besides the industrial revolution . . .

You really are a stupid son of a bitch.

I'm interested in his comments on automation, where he claims that automation so far always resulted in more work instead of reducing work. Can you recommend any resources on the topic?

Good one.

That's a stupid fucking generalization. Plus, nobody has the right to others' stuff because he is alive.

What generalization are you talking about and how is it fucking stupid? You sound mad.

Nobody has rights period. Just because you claim you deserve something doesn't mean you're going to get it. I don't care if you are alive or dead, I'll fuck with your shit all I want if I have the strength and willingness to do so. Reality is a bitch.

...

smh Stirner was blond

That the strong hurt the weak all the time

If I make something, It's mine. If I trade it with someone else on mutual terms, It's bound by our agreement, and is his. If you take it by force you are a thief.

no.

So tell me how that's a stupid generalization then. Ever seen a boxing match before?

No, it's whoever has the strength to take it from you. You declaring something is yours because you made it means absolutely nothing.

It also means you are stronger than the person who you took it from.

Spooky.

Are you implying everyone deals through force? BTW, both guys in a boxing match know that they might be hit and one will win. Also, this is a stupid strawman.

statement backed without proof

Uh, you're a fucking brite if you take it, you're inferior because you could not create it and hence, had to steal it.

wow, this place is retarded.

Welcome, my property.

All hierarchical societies everywhere function through the implied threat of force.

Without forces nothing happens.

Who wins? The stronger wins and he has to hurt his opponent to do so. The strong don't just hurt the weak, they rule the weak through force.

As is the claim that if you make something it's yours. A right is merely a claim of desire.

Doesn't matter if I couldn't if I can just get you to make it then take it from you. Exploitation and superior strength makes me superior regardless of any inability to make something.

That's because leftism is retarded.

lol are that guy's eyes little ghosts?

that's so cute

doesn't exist

People here really need to read The Republic.

Socrates already had these discussions with Thrasymachus more than two thousand years ago.

And if you read Book 2 of Aristotle's Politics you will learn about how Aristotle BTFO of Plato. Sharing wives and children is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

...

see

sure thing

wasn't the point.
Whether you believe in the concept of rights or not, the arguments still have relevance because they weren't exclusively about them.

Plato's views on family are part and parcel to his ideal Republic, you would know that if you read the Republic.

history is replete with examples of societies that did this exact thing

The argument of whether might equals right or if something else equals right are fruitless if right doesn't exist, and legitimacy doesn't exist, the arguments are irrelevant. They are only useful when whatever idea of legitimacy you come to is something that actually benefits me on a personal level.

Societies is also replete with examples of autism, doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Which had nothing to do with his argument with Thrasymachus.

Except that it wasn't exclusively about rights, and had to do with the personal self-interest of the stronger.

So yeah, it is relevant if you have an affinity for Stirner.

Yes it did. He tried to prove what an ideal society was like where might doesn't make right and the sharing of wives and children was apart of the requirement for the Guardians of his ideal republic.

...

Nietzsche despised nihilism because it was an indulgence in weakness and hedonism, that post is spot on.

much like your post

FUCKING HILARIOUS

NO!!!111! YouU are the STUuuOPUD one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!

He despised passive nihilism, which is what you've described.