Remind me how egoism is antipropertarian?

Egoism (from the perspective of proletarians) is intrinsically anti-property and communistic.

Attached: stirner on workers.jpg (1920x1080, 390.47K)

Egocap sounds like madcap

That's the point- you can't just 'take it'. The landlord will defend it or will call on police or a private force to defend it. It's not a 'moral' choice between taking and not taking. It's a practical question of what's best for you and what you care about (property, family, friends etc.) In this sense, all morality is practical, not theoretical. In an ordered society, it makes sense for you, personally, to respect order, because the fact that the society is ordered indicates that nasty things are apt to happen to those who violate that order. If a society is in a state of chaos, such as if you are in a warzone, then it makes sense to kill and loot. In a state of chaos, if you do not kill, loot and rape, you will be killed, looted and raped yourself. In a state of order, refraining from killing, looting and raping will result in you being left alone - people in the society have come to an arrangement by which they can cooperate in respecting each other's lives and property. Order is large scale cooperation in prisoner's dilemma terms, whereas chaos is universal defection.

t.emperor of mankind

I can't think about events of leftist terror like the Khmer Rouge self-genocide or the French Red Terror without getting a daemonic possession vibe. Leftism is the closest analogue to the forces of Chaos that we have in our universe.

Ayn Rand was an objectivist, which Stirner would have called spooky af.
People who maintain Eigenheit could swing porky, but I can only think of a handful of situations where that’s possible. For instance, who ever it was would have to maintain property not for its own sake, but as a means to an end, while at the same time not doing it because some form of avarice over powered him. A lot of the porkys I see are actually miserable in their position, and the ones who aren’t are some form of sociopath. The sociopath is probably the truest porky egoist there is, as he has 0 qualms with whatever suffering his social class creates, and could possibly keep his material lusts from leading him by the nose. Not saying being a sociopath is inherently bad, of course, but I think certain psychological makeups make being a ruthless capitalist easier than it is for others. For instance, if you ever get a chance, read “Steppenwolf” by Herman Hesse. The narrative explains how the borgeousie is almost split in two, and can very rarely be its “own”. That being said, I think many in the capitalist class are spooked and actually believe in morality and some form of humanism, still. Many times, they’ll justify their position from that point of view. There’s also a good amount of Christian capitalist, that will do mental gymnastics using the Bible to explain how they’re still a “good” person in the eyes of god. sometimes it seems they aren’t conscious of their own class, and all that comes with it.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1000x541, 579.18K)

This is another way of saying that it is in the interest of those without property to attempt to take it by force. Obviously this is conceivable, but is it true? I don't think there really is such an 'enormous power' in the hand of the 'proletariat', at least since the invention of automatic weapons.
The proletarian has little. But if he pursues violent revolution, he might be killed, and if he succeeds in abolishing private property, who is to say that he will not end up with even less than he began with? If order is destroyed, then cooperation breaks down and the strong prey on the weak directly, by bloodshed. I don't think it is in the self interest of proletarians to pursue the abolishment of property, because I'd rather be a prole in the USA than a 'liberated' worker in any socialist country in history, to judge by their respective standards of living.

Yes the ruling class control over property by using force. The only way dominance hierarchies can even exist is through the strict enforcement of order and classes.
Who said anything about morals. We are talking philosophy and ethics here
And also what's best for you. Who would give a shit about your family if you're dead?
Most morality is purely theoretical. Various abstractions and material conditions make a different set of morality that is unique to each individual culture that adopts a code of norms
It's a clusterfuck of culture, ethnicity, class antagonisms, ideology, conflict, and state programs designed to keep property ownership in place. Most states are used to serve the ruling class interests against the working class. There are too many contradictions in current society that just saying "obey authority" won't cut it anymore since everything is becoming more criminalized
No shit, being arrested sucks so avoid getting arrested is in my ego's interest.
That is hardly the case, look how cops harass people and communities looking for arrests.
Ownership of property leads to inequity which allows for the ruling class to exert force over the working class. No cooperation, just exploitation would be a porky's view to maximize profits.
I'm pretty sure our universe is faaar from being ordered. It lives in a constant seeing of expanding chaos and nothingness.

Attached: spooky.jpg (255x206, 20.2K)

who ever it was would have to maintain property not for its own sake, but as a means to an end
Exactly. The end is maximizing one's own wellbeing. In an ordered society, the best way of doing this is to respect the existing order - in game theory terms, the ordered society is a game of prisoner's dilemma which has been iterated so many times that people have learned to almost always cooperate. If you enter such a game of prisoners' dilemma, the best way forward is to continue to cooperate. Defecting only makes sense if there is a high likelihood of the other player defecting - thus it is only in your self interest to kill, loot, rape etc. if you are within an already chaotic society.

You seem unable to read. The quote from Stirner refers to strike action. In every 'socialist' country the conditions of workers improved and standards of living were significantly better than before. Moreover despite the considerable gap in development between the eastern bloc and the west, average standards of living were higher in the east.

How exactly does giving a small % of the population a monopoly on the resources people need in order to work "allow people to coexist and cooperate"? It gives the property owners power over the majority by coercing them into living according to their terms. Hell, you right-wingers love to complain about exactly that whenever it works against you, like when that autist got fired from Google a while back and somehow you guys blamed the left for it.
Private property serves only to inhibit personal freedom for the working class

Why is "order" automatically a good thing? Slave societies, dictatorships, and monarchies were all "ordered" but that certainly doesn't mean they were a good thing, especially for the people at the bottom of this "order". Your crap about the prisoner's dilemma only makes sense if everyone involved is in a relatively equal situation.

Attached: 1517880825971.jpg (1000x216 61.33 KB, 126.11K)

Didn't the opposite of that happen in The Fountainhead?

I agree. But I think that's a good thing. An ordered society is more productive than a chaotic one, thus better for all its members (except criminals). The economy of Europe shrunk by 2 orders of magnitude from the height of the Roman empire to barbarian anarchy.
I don't see any reason to make a distinction between morals and ethics in this discussion. Substitute any word you like.
An egoist cares about what he cares about, what his nature makes him care about. Obviously his own life is high on the list, but so are the lives of his friends and family, and if he is from a tribalistic culture, his tribe. People care about their lives, their friends, their wives, children and parents, and their property, not about philosophical abstractions.
I agree, although I don't think it's "designed" - I think it evolved that way, because societies that protected property won over ones that didn't. I also think it's a good thing. From my egoist perspective, it's a good thing that people are spooked into respecting property because if they weren't, they wouldn't understand my sophisticated game theory justification of property, and would do a Zimbabwe, resulting in me being poor and unsafe.
Current society is indeed an unfixable clusterfuck, descending slowly into chaos and barbarism like many other civilizations before it. I am speaking in general.
Indeed, current society is being attacked from above, by the state. Whites in Detroit in the 70s attempted to organize to expel black rioters from their neighborhoods, that is, attempted to enforce and protect order on a micro scale. The police came down on them like a ton of bricks, while allowing the riots to continue, resulting in the whites being driven out and Detroit turning into the Mogadishu it is today.
And yet when order fails, the have-nots under the old order become the have-even-lesses under anarchy. If you were a peasant in a Roman province, you had every reason to support the legions over the barbarians. The Emperor might tax you, but the barbarians want to burn down your farm, kill you and rape your wife. Order isn't pretty, but it's prettier than chaos. And order, to a close approximation, is property rights.
I'm not sure you understand my prisoner's dilemma analogy. Cooperation and defection have specific meanings in game theory. I'm also not sure how relevant astrophysics is to this argument.

Yeah right. Remember how the Berlin Wall was built to keep desperate West Berliner capitalists from flooding into the glorious socialist utopia of East Berlin? Or how Floridans were always building rafts from old trucks to sail to Cuba? Me neither.

Life isn't an isolated behaviour experiment with a fixed length and wholly rational actors at the table. This shit isn't as useful as you think.

You cant compare a country to another country with a totally different history and circumstances. The fact is that generally speaking, communist revolutions raised the standards of living of their populations compared to what came before. Which is why many people actually did move to socialist countries.

And here we get to the root of the dispute. Order, defined as large scale cooperation between people, IS always better than chaos. Chaos is all against all. Order is some group of people, united by bonds of blood, friendship or the laws of a state, working together. However much it may suck to be at the bottom of an ordered system, it does not suck nearly so much as being outside order. Outside order, not only will you be bullied, killed, looted, raped etc. by other "individuals", you will be fair game for every ordered system, such as a tribe or military hierarchy. There is no 'good' solution to the problem of large scale human cooperation. There are only bad solutions that kinda work, and non-solutions.

Face it, all revolutionary change is destructive and chaotic, including the revolutionary birth and triumph of capitalism. The English Civil War, American Revolution, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, are all analogous to the Holodomor, Russian/Chinese Civil Wars, etc. in that they were the product of a rapid shift towards capitalism. If you were alive in 1789 you would be denouncing liberalism as "the forces of chaos" while hoeing your turnips under the yolk of the local noble. You're basically a cuck that would rather be safe than free.

Correct, life is a continuing Darwinian process. Game theory is eminently applicable to Darwinism.

peak cuckoldry

Except revolutions generally don't degenerate into total lawlessness, they split a country into two camps that duke it out in armed conflict, and much of the time, one of these camps will offer a better deal than the other. Honestly for all your bitching about order you seem to be ignoring the fact that communist regimes have historically kept order quite well, and their fall usually means total chaos. Look at Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union. In fact your sentiment doesnt even defend a particular system, it can be applied to any society. All it does is defend the status quo.

Property rights exist under socialism, they just take a different form.

What gives you the idea that I endorse liberal capitalism? Vive le roi!
It does not make a difference to me whether my freedom is violated by random thugs and barbarian tribes under anarchy, or by a tyrannical totalitarian state. As a property owner, my freedom is maximized in a society that is ordered because order, to a good approximation, is property rights. A state that systematically kills and loots in an ordered fashion is possible, but a separate problem. Genocide of productive people and taxation above the Laffer limit are always the product of either ideological insanity (a la Pol Pot) or a breakdown of order within the state (civil wars a la Rome).

Maybe if you read the one fucking book he wrote you'd understand. Why are ancaps shilling Stirner so hard without reading him? Is this a win for us?

As opposed to the '67 revolt where the Insurrection Act was invoked and the National Guard was sent in with orders to kill which left 50 people dead? My heart goes out to poor lil whitey who can't just kill the uppity blacks without impunity.
Think that might have more to do with cheap Japanese cars flooding the market, the decade long labor struggles in the city, automation becoming more affordable, and offshoring.

Human society isn't Darwinian.

Rules can be useful, but our current property rules have outlived their usefulness. We can do better by applying some more reason to them.

They did not keep order as well as the reactionary regimes that preceded them. And their replacements have been better, in some cases miles better - look at China. (Obviously Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is just capitalism with a powerful state)
Let's look at some famous revolutions, shall we?
French Revolution: Religious democide in the Vendee. Massive political repression, massive war taxation, France ravaged by war. If anything, worse than lawless.
Russian Revolution: Years of war between Reds and Whites, brutal scorched earth tactics on both sides. Economy is on starvation level until NEP.
Chinese communist revolution: Tens of millions killed by insane policies. Worse than lawless.
Order is strengthened by restoring the traditional structures of power, as in the original Restoration (Charles II). Revolution always leads to a degeneration of order.

All living things obey the laws of Darwinism. That which is best at surviving, survives. Humans are living things, ergo literally everything humans do is Darwinian.

You may be on to something here, but not in the way I think you think. What do you mean?

Total bullshit. The Russian and Chinese empires, to take the most prominent examples, were supremely impotent, which is why they collapsed into the chaos that opened a space for the communists to seize power.

The most successful regimes have been the bourgeois democratic ones, predatory as they are.

If one uses 'Darwinian' as a synonym for 'Human nature' or 'nature', game theory is no longer applicable in the slightest

Productive efficiency would be improved and better targeted if production were organized socially. Our conception of property rights need to be reworked into ones in concert with totally social production. Current property rights only serve a parasitical class of capital owners and managers. More space would be opened up for leisure time, and overconsumption would be reduced if the relation between how much people have to work is made clear with regards with what they consume, and made subjects to simple democratic control, in stead of filtered through a market with capitalist incentives.

And here we see why ancaps are often called neofeudalists

They weren't exactly dynamic. But there was no terror famine under the Tsar, and no Great Leap Forward under the old Chinese order. The Tsarist secret police killed a few dozen a year. Compare that to Lenin or Stalin. You're correct that the Tsars opened the way for communism - left wing land reforms began under Alexander II. Lenin, Stalin and many other leftist revolutionaries were captured repeatedly by the authorities, but they were not executed. The Tsars allowed the revolutionaries to operate because the Tsars themselves had lost the will to rule, much as king Louis XVI tolerated Rousseau and Voltaire. When the King himself does not defend his royal prerogative, who will?

I'm not an ancap, ancaps have an unrealistic view of human nature. The NAP only works for males with low time preference and high Autism Level, and everyone else must be under some form of authority or another. Thus I am a neofeudalist, neomonarchist, neocolonialist, neo- anything that's good and reactionary.

Game theory is applicable to literally all interactions between rational actors. Granted, humans are not always rational, but those humans who have the brains and low time preference to accumulate property, generally are quite rational.

Game theory assumes a reductive 'rationality' which bears little resemblance towards actual human interactions. Humans tend to overwhelmingly act against what game theory would presume to be the rational choice. We're a social species with a strong natural predisposition towards cooperation and altruism. This is why there have never been and never will be practical applications of game theory in predicting human behaviour. Its always a masturbatory exercise in normative sociology/political science.
game theory applied to social interaction is the mindset of a schizophrenic

Production is already organized 'socially', i.e. in a decentralized way. Have you read 'I, Pencil'? No single person knows how to make a pencil. The knowledge of how to turn wood, how to grow and fell trees, how to make the tools to fell trees, how to make the steel to make the tools, how to make the machines that make the steel, etc etc, is distributed among millions of people who work in the productive economy.
Under the current, spontaneous decentralized system, every productive person is concerned only with what he himself actually produces, what he knows best. Everything else he obtains by buying and selling. In order to prevent others from interfering with his work, he needs a fence around his stuff - thus property rights. Under your system of democratic control, people would be put in charge of productive capital and processes they have no idea how to work, and would fuck everything up, much as black Zimbabwean farmers did when they were put in charge of previously fertile white-run farms - suddenly, mysteriously, the farms failed to bring forth any more grain. Similarly if line workers are put 'democratically' in charge of engineering, or janitors given an equal share in deciding major business strategy.

And that's the game theory! Altruism and cooperation are built into us by evolution because they are useful in helping us cooperate with others for mutual benefit. When we see a thief or murderer as evil, that is our evolved instincts telling us to avoid associating and trying to cooperate with that man, because by thieving or murdering he has demonstrated that he cannot or will not cooperate rather than defect. And when we see a trustworthy man as 'good', that is our evolved instincts telling us that it is a good idea to associate with and cooperate with this man, because he has demonstrated a willingness to cooperate in return.

was a reply to

was a reply to

Pure ideology. You don't need a capitalist market economy to have people put in as much work - socially necessary labour time - as they take out via consumption. All of this can be neatly calculated. We don't need the crutch of a market anymore, nor the rent collection of the bourgeois class of the means of production the happen to own for purely contingent reasons. Specialization, accounting of production and consumption, a measure of purely personal property - none of that requires the existence of capitalism as we know it.

As to worker owned means of production being somehow mismanaged because the people who work them don't know how they work - what? Workers work with the machines, they know how they work. They will not vote to alter the composition of the plastic used in packaging just for shits and giggles. Maybe they choose to work less, but that will be reflected in less labour vouchers for them. It is telling that your first go-to example is a marginal case happening in a developing country full of scary black people.

Not at all. Game theory presupposes the full understanding of a game (in the context of human society, no less than omniscience) by all participants as well the aim of all participants to profit from the game. This runs counter to observable human behaviour in a majority of cases.
You have so far switched from the presenting society as 'darwinian' which when pressed on, you admitted was an approach based on game theory, and when pressed on that you have now switched to bonafide evolutionary psychology which amounts to vague hand-waving away the genuine material causes of observable human behaviour.

Really? Watching VR porn is Darwinian? Blowing yourself up at a security checkpoint in Kabul is Darwinian? Shitting on your wife's chest is Darwinian? Issuing a parking ticket is Darwinian? Knocking your front teeth out parkouring off a roof is Darwinian?

Possibly, but wellbeing can be maximized by most people If all their essentials are met. That doesn’t presuppose becoming porky. Although, if you want to be the next Engels, be my guest.
Why this circular reasoning?
If my well-being includes being a wage worker thats dominated by forces of alienation, then order does not serve me. Why wouldn’t I subvert order?
Why? This assumes that I and others have some sort of attachment to the existing “order” of things.

Spooked by order, tbh

You come across as high intelligence, thus you fail to understand just how stupid the average person is. One of the scariest things I think about is that due to the shape of the bell curve, for every 130 there is a 70. Workers do not understand the machines they use. If they did, they'd be engineers. Taxi drivers do not understand taxis, gardeners do not understand lawnmowers. (in fact, as shown in my pencil example, nobody really understands lawnmowers).
You have literally no idea just how difficult the engineering and organizational problems are in the production of everyday stuff. They might vote to delegate purely technical problems to engineers who actually know how to solve them. But if the company/collective is on a course for bankruptcy, will they vote for lower wages? Will they vote for necessary layoffs? How many of them will understand why layoffs and cuts are necessary? The accountant will be exasperatedly trying to explain to them why such and such a course is necessary to save all their skins, and the minority who get it will be permanently outvoted by the majority. The average person simply does not have the mental ability to run a large productive enterprise efficiently. And if you are counting on them delegating these decisions anyway to those who do have the brains, why have democratic management at all?
This happened in every post colonial country in Africa. An entire continent ruined by egalitarian ideals is not marginal.

No it does not. Humans play the game over far fewer iterations than the process of Darwinan selection plays it. Darwinian selection does not need to have full knowledge of the game to design us to win at the game, any more than Darwinian selection needs to know optics to design an eye. Read Dawkins, not the religious stuff, the evolution stuff. I have not shifted my position at all. If you could understand my position, you would see that it is all interlinked.

I think that image gave me cancer.
"the golden rule" is bullshit because treating someone well doesn't necessitate that they will in turn act the same way towards you, otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Spooks can be useful but in the end they're just spooks, and since egoism is amoral we don't make value judgements, so we don't think stealing is preferable to not stealing. Please read the fucking ego book before posting. Also Rand idolized porkies and said self-interest in only "good" if you do so in the interest of your boss, this is at complete odds with egoism which holds the individual above all.
t. egoist anarchist ancom sympathizer

The Fountainhead was literally "muh bootstraps: the book"; also let's not forget Atlas Shrugged, where a bunch of rich porkies get butthurt about workers wanting to unionize so they run away and while they're gone the society almost collapses because in lolbert fantasyland people are completely incapable of self-organizing unless they have someone higher-up stepping on their neck.

order is an illusion. there's no reason to uphold this facade unless I want to, and I don't want to.

Attached: ultizeta avatar.png (200x200, 49.22K)

They won't have a choice in the matter. If they are going "bankrupt", read producing at too far above average socially necessary labour time, they would no longer get enough labour vouchers to justify continuing their labour in that field. Gainful employment will wait for them elsewhere.

Yup, that's your evolved sexual psychology being short circuited by technology.
More complicated, but basically: Darwinian selection can produce a propensity to die for one's tribe, for the same reason as ants die for their nest. A religion is a giant, synthetic tribe. (Religions, like tribes and ants' nests, are also evolving entities subject to Darwinian selection. A religion which induces beliefs likely to cause adherents to die in its service wins over a less fanatical one, thus the expansion of Islam).
As much as swinging from trees in the ancestral environment to impress the chicks and gain status in the male hierarchy was.

Only in your fever dreams. Regular African people have very little democratic input in the production process, or much else besides.

There were a number of Russian famines in the 19th century, and the Taiping rebellion in 1850 killed at least as many people as Mao.

Compare 7th century Paris to 17th century. See the difference? That's why you'll uphold order if you know what's good for you.

Preceded by a famine, wars and a bankrupt state
Preceded by a war between the Russia and the Axis, famines and the signs of an approaching famine and one of the most backward economies in Europe. Followed by the Soviet Union becoming a superpower through rapid industrialization and raising living standards.
Preceded by a backward economy, constant famines and imperialist assault. Followed by Mao doubling life exceptancy and transforming China into a superpower.

You do realise that any behaviour imaginable can be justified by this method. It adds nothing and is of no value for understanding society. There are actual fields which tries to use evidence to discern the nature of observable human behaviour, they're called anthropology and political economy.

Everything you posted here just goes to show just how impotent those monarchs were. It seems strange to be smug about the collapse of certain socialists states but feel all melancholy about the collapse of all the shitty monarchies. You don't come of as very rational.

The collective is trading at a loss. The workers vote against wage cuts. The accountant tells them that if this carries on, he'll have to sell some assets. The workers vote to sell assets, and the collective begins selling its capital. Production declines further, and eventually, everyone is thrown out to beg for a job elsewhere or starve on the streets. Running a large scale productive enterprise requires intelligence and foresight, which only a few people possess.

Every post colonial leftist government redistributed land and mines to native ownership, with the result that now Africa is a massive money sink, the productive West paying to prevent their starvation, whereas before it had been more or less profitable.

It depends on if you own property or not.

You can't sell collective property dumbass.

Oh, it's every post colonial leftist country now. Anyway, little aid ever went to leftist regimes, except via the Soviet Union. All you fetid imaginations about vast waves of aid that don't actually exist only ever proved necessary to stem the wounds inflicted by neoliberal shock therapy.

Bu more money is drawn out of Africa than it is given in aid. The net flow of wealth is out of Africa.

I have a dog. When the dog obeyed me, I fed it, and when it did something I did not want it to do, I shouted at it or slapped it on the nose. Now it is very loyal. It does not seem to me that canine political economy is needed to explain the behaviour of this dog, in fact, it seems to me as if this dog has an innate mental nature, created by evolution (and artificial selection), just as its physical nature was.
A dog is an animal, thus every part of its nature, physical and mental, is a product of evolution.
Is a human an animal?

Every post colonial government was leftist to some degree, further left than its predecessor. Massive amounts of aid went and continue to go to every African country.
I do not know if

Attached: african 'civilization'.png (555x584, 256.09K)

If you cannot sell collective property, then that is even more of a disaster. If it is necessary for the enterprise to sell assets which it is not efficient to continue to own, or to raise emergency cash, then how does it do so? You have just admitted my point that collective ownership makes it impossible for capital to be bought and sold as necessary to distribute it in a way that is maximally productive.

Lmao no they didnt. When they tried they often were the victims of subversion or coups by foreign powers. The result is that much of Africa's natural resources are still owned by foreign corporations today, while billions of their own dollars are held in the treasuries of their former colonial masters, and cant be accessed without permission.

For giggles I googled what development aid is worldwide. It's $160-ish billion. This also includes consultancy fees for whitey of course. Altogether it accounts for .2% of world GDP.
Such lavish spending on those swarthy moochers.

You don't have to buy and sell things. They can be planned for production and assigned directly as needed.

Attached: 12560231.jpg (50x50, 1.25K)

neat false equivalence you got there. also neat shift from explaining away human nature through evopsych to operant conditioning. It seems to me that you have very little idea what you're actually talking about. I haven't seen this much hand-waving about how society works, evopsych and how dumb and irrational 'the other people' are since i taught a class of 16 year olds.
If you are not going to address the fact that evolutionary psychology is entirely bankrupt at least have a read of this informative article.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201412/how-valid-is-evolutionary-psychology

According to OECD statistics africa recieves a total of just under 60 billion US dollars worth of aid annually. However a total of 192 billion dollars is drawn out of africa, primarily by western corporate profits reinvested in the west and colonial debts to western countries. For example the French economy has depended on francafrique for decades.

you seem to be confused about what collective property and communism entails given you mention money and the sale of capital.

Private property =/= personal property.
"My property" in Stirner's sense is based on use. IE there's little reason for workers and managers to naturally cede their rights to the factory and the profits of their own production without a system in place that coerces them to do so.

Nah, I think I'll do what I want. stay spooked, kiddo.

Because the system that defends my property is the same one that fucks me over ten times more than my property is worth.

Nice spooks nerd. I'd have no reason to attack the people next to me for they look after me just as much as I look out for them.

Besides, Max wasn't a sociopath, he wasn't against friendships, community and family.

Couldn't have said it any better.

You keep talking about Darwinism and game theory and yet seem to no understand either of those:

Darwinism isn't survival of the fittest, it's reproduction of the survivals. The kiwi bird is a useless blob of feathered fat that can't fly, but it has no predators in it's environment, so it persists. Multiple birds on the amazonian jungle are incredibly colorful and stick out of dark green forest like a sore thumb even though they have predators.

Game theory as you speak of is applied to single games. The outcome of any game would change drastically depending if you're playing against the same person multiple times or if you're playing with a single person but, unbeknownst to you, they watch many of your matches and understand your patterns. This is how first timers are able to beat veterans.

Attached: stiber IRL.jpeg (255x203, 11.52K)

egoism: it's mine because i want it, if you take it i will take it back because i want it.
propertarianism: it's mine because i have the property rights to it, if you take it that's in violation of those rights.

also cricket is a boring sport so by this analogy egoists are right again for deciding not to play.

Attached: get the liquor.jpeg (403x216, 16.29K)

Proletariat power rests on labor, that is true. There is something unique about human labor, such that there has yet to be anything more advanced than human labor to replace it with…yet. As I see it, the rich are racing to replace the proletariat with robots as soon as possible. It's only logical following that over-population is a big concern these days, as related to ecological duress and ethnic strife. And it's only expected following capitalist dehumanization. We proles need more than just labor in our future. We need to find a way to remain dangerous, even with our numbers. If we are not dangerous, then we are as good as dead. We are no better than a Gaddafi, or a world leader that has lost their nukes. Only the labor of a select few will matter in the future, and maybe they will be the new masters- engineers, computer scientists and related. We need to strike NOW!