Stirner is /ancap/

Can we establish once for all that Stirner is an ancap/lolbertarian philosopher? I'm no yellow-black fag, yet reclaiming Stirner from leftypol would result in massive butthurt. Who's with me?

i don't believe that stirner ever existed. he and his writings were made up post WW2

You're just spooked, I bet you don't even think age is just a number.

But ancaps and lolbertarians are big on the NAP (non aggression principle). image #1 goes against that belief. Most of those types are very moralistic, almost religious in their beliefs. They don't believe to the victor goes the spoils. They belief they "deserve" the taxes they pay. It's a very jewy mindset they have, more proof that lols and ancaps are just different jew mindsets to control opposition.

He was a CUCK.
Fuck off lefty/pol/

Colors r spooks

He is not at all an ancap. Might makes right, confederates of egoistic individuals, egoist anarchism, etc.

A more interesting question is, is he a lefty? And the answer is probably not.

I am an ancap. That other guy talking about how we're religiously moral is not correct, we generally believe our policies are best because of their effect, not because of moralist. Certainly if other principles could be shown to be superior to anarchocapitalist ones on a basis of self interest I would abandon them. I just really don't think that's the case at all.

>>>Holla Forums

This is ancap.

And wrong again, he is extremely leftist.

Fuck off spook. You doesn't even real

No, it isn't. Non aggression principle is most decidedly not "Might makes right".

...

Am I to take it that coupled with your assertion that a summary of his positions makes him an ancap, ancap is "extremely leftist"?

Yes it is.

De jure, no, but de facto it is. Just like other leftist ideologies, ancap on paper is far different from how it would be in practice (because ancaps are stupid and autistic and do not understand human nature at all). Ancap in practice would be bourgeois feudalism. Not "like feudalism," buy literally feudalism.

Of course it is.

Fuck Holla Forums, and fuck this "enlightened" faggot philosopher.

It sounds like "anarcho-survavialism" or some other batshit mad-max tier ideology.

We understand human nature quite well. We just don't see fit to let the failings of animals dictate how we ought to optimally construct an economy. The fact that said animals then cannot even distinguish the philosophy from its absolute opposite, make false extrapolations based upon pure supposition, etc, just highlights the core point that humans are by and large, stupid as fuck.

Like saying that ancaps are leftist, for example.

spookybait.jpg
reported


commie detected

lefties trying to claim him doesnt make sense but pol trying to doesn't make much sense either

Fuck off

...

You're standing out even more, foreigner faggot. Why are you even here?

NAP is not necissarily a moral principle, and most intelligent ancaps don't take it to be one.

It's simply stating that property rights are an effiecient way to run an economy. It donsn't have anything to do with axioms or morality, its just a consequence of human nature which has been observed empiracally.

Its the same as creating a principle called NRE (Niggers Ruin Everything). Its not some deep and unbreakable moral principle, its just a consequence of their biology which we have observed via empiracal evidence.

You just made my list


It's a logical position, but it's also a perfectly fine basis for morality, or at least for what is immoral. The lefties have a retarded view of it because they know a strict interpretation leaves them open to retaliation.

...

Modern war does not have victors, it has one side that loses less, or total annihilation. Total annihilation being a more likely prospect with each passing year and technological advance.
We believe people who declare they have a right to our wealth because they're willing to do violence to secure it do not "deserve" it. Especially in light of the aforementioned fact regarding the nature of modern war.
This is ironic and pretty funny coming from what I assume is a garden variety natsoc. You rage against "the Jews" whilst simultaneously appearing completely unaware that they simply *buy* the state to which you claim allegiance, and *you* are the one that ends up paying taxes to *them*.