I won't claim to have read more than snippets, but no woman has ever made more sense to me.
Could you, please, spell out your problems with her moral arguments? I understand that people starve and suffer "under" capitalism, but I don't see how that makes any of it "immoral".
Morality=/Utopia
Oops, I obviously meant to start the thread with a picture of this beauty, but stumbled across the other picture without editing my OP.
Marx doesn't give a shit about morality in capitalism. He attacked the purest, most theoretical fortified version of capitalism and found systematic contradictions in it. These contradictions would eventually lead to its collapse, which won't be a benefit for the people involved, moral or not.
Don't confuse us with bleeding heart liberals.
Private property doesn't exist in nature. People only own the items they can physically occupy for that moment. It is impossible to be a landlord of property you do not live on without some sort of enforcers to evict trespassers when you're away. This is the state.
The state is used to defend private property. And since capitalism depends on private property, it is not a rule of nature but an artificial imposition. Without the state, tenants could occupy unused land, workers could occupy the factory, home owners could tell the bank to fuck off, music and software could be downloaded for free, and there would be no such thing as privatization of natural resources.
Read Stirner
Okay, and now imagine that for you to go hunt you must pay the forrest fairy 80% of the meat you hunt.
I say kill the forrest fairy and keep 100% of the meat. Is that immoral?
It does, territory exist.
It gets so sophistaced that predator pack let hermivores into their territory and then slaughter them later.
It is immoral because if you get all, there will be nothing left to hunt.
I didn't say I'd take all the meat in the forrest, just that I'd keep all the meat I hunt instead of paying the fairy for the right to hunt on her private property.
Although it's pretty misguided to apply human concepts to animals, that's still personal property, as the predator is physically present on that land to enforce it as his. He does not hire others who can ensure it is his while he is not using it. This "enforcement at a distance" is private property.
Even the classical liberals understood this, which is why they argued for a state.
Again, predators only "own" the terrotory by occupancy, you jackass. If the pred is away and herbivores move in, the pred doesn't go to the pred police and have them evict the herbivore occupiers. Ultimately "ownership" comes about by force, there are no 'natural rights', such concepts are merely spooks. Read Stirner.
Still waiting for the collapse.
That she did what she wished, and that Stirner let her do what she wished-that of course may have let her appear in the eyes of the marriage-slaves as detestable as it later did to her, but it can only make the two of them more likable to us. Every act of making up the mind for the other, for that matter, would not have fit at all into the nature of those involved, for whom "marriage" meant only a loose band that was thrown around them purely externally. And not on the "unfaithfulness" of the wife-how ridiculous!-did "this marriage perish," but simply and only under the pressure of the circumstances in which he and she unfortunately all too soon found themselves.
From "Max Stirner - His Life and His Works" By Mackay
Wait…so this shit is just a thought experiment to you people?
It's not about anything other than proving Santa Claus was right?
Holy shit, when I thought you people were just compulsively altruistic, your "crabs in a bucket" Marxism made so much more sense to me.
You guys really ARE flat-earthers.
But that is what you say when you want to get all the meat, who maintain the forest? Oh right, the forest fairy.
Bourgsie morality only stems from the belief that capitalism is permanent and it's not. It just justifies the current class system. Ayn Rand and ancaps are just the PC police for the bourgsie. The NAP is litterally the political correctness playbook for the bourgsie. It's really irreverent because we are for class war and we see nothing but class war. There is no moral code in war, no one plays fair. The same goes for the bourgeoisie. Sure, they can talk about voluntary exchanges but then pay politicians to invade a country and open up markets. It's simply in their economic interest but it's overwhelming against the proletariat's. Even if you have a few rich cappy countries, they only exist due to imperialism.
That is what the pack is for, so a bunch of wolves can manage a kilometer of territory.
Inb4 that bunch of wolf is the state, nigger
If we are already at the point where we are anthropomorphising animals with human concepts as "private property", it is not absurd to use the word "state" here. After all, if the pack of wolves truly has a monopoly on the use of force, and unused territory is maintained, then we have a state (by definition) and private property.
But that doesn't really look like what's happening here. The wolves manage only the territory they occupy for that moment, even if it's a large territory. The wolves claim the property for their personal use; they do not claim the property to charge other animals to use it, because they lack the ability to project their property claims all at once, everywhere. It is not the "stable ownership" that Jefferson or the classical liberals described. And I repeat, they do this for their personal use.
All the meat I hunt. I'm very specific, you can't word juggle your way out of that.
The forest fairy doesn't maintain anything, she uses the meat I give her to hire maintainers. Why can't I and the maintainers work without the fairy?
Again, they only have that territory because they occupy it and claim it. But if another pack shows up and kills them, then the new pack will own the land. Ownership comes about by force, property rights are spooks, you complete fucking brainlet. READ STIRNER.
Irrelevent ad hominem. Read Stirner.
Capitalism is collapsing, unlike you cucks, we're preparing for the future.
Didn't Rand say it is immoral for the weak not to suffer?
Is theft immoral? If yes, so is capitalism. It's simple really
ISHIGGY
get fucked mutt
...
I really don't understand what point that comic is making.
It is all around you
Wait let me guess… you never read a single book, right?
GAAAAYYYY
Morals are spooks. Naked self-interest is the only guiding factor in life. Everyone suffers under liberalism and capitalism, even the faggots on top.
t. OP if he had lived in 4000 BC.
We are communists because we know that communism will materially benefit us.
We don't pretend to give a shit about morality. We also don't give a shit about the so called natural order. Human nature and human behavior is molded by external conditions and can be changed to whatever we want it to be.
nature is the same as the game people force other people to play.