It’s mostly pretentious finger-wagging at other people for making use of universals in their language
Once again, we can look at everything is a universal at all times. And that everything that exists at any given point in time is forever complete and perfect.. And at any point in time a thing is always itself, and can only be itself.
The notion of a total rebellion against “external” determinants of thought represented in those pesky universals is elitist nonsense
Once again you are catagorizing, once again “render unto Caesar”, once again something isn’t sublime,you feel sublime), and finally A=A. As far as elitism is concerned, do you wish to infer there is an actual alternative? I don’t think there is, if I think you are using the word the way I think you are using the word, we are all egoists now.
'Than let’s just use the term “moral egoist” at every time every piece of advice I utilize, I note, and I do is an ever changing ethic (supposedly by the inescapable definition of the word, as much as a square must have four sides) “all and all unto itself” and at every moment unique. These ethics are than applied not even to a person, but an ever evolving mutant which is different from everything else at every moment in time, interacting with everything in an ever unique manner. These “ethics” come not from a person but from my communication and reaction to absolutely every unique thing around me at any given point in time that has been processed. It is “universally true” in the fact that every moment the universe is 100% “correct” at any given point in ever changing time (as contextualized, defined, and valued by…moi!). ’
Well if they aren’t applied to a person, then what use are then since the definition of ethics is a code of conduct specifying what is good and what is bad in human interaction with other humans or beings. If everything in the universal is 100% correct at any given time then there can be no concept such as ‘injustice’ or ‘incorrectness’ and without something to contrast ‘justice’ or ‘correctness’ with then these concepts lose their descriptive ability. It then resorts to a theory of not what is or isn’t correct, just simply what is regardless of any sentiment toward it. Such a system can hardly be called a system of ethics.
Such a system can hardly be called a system of ethics.
Ethics can hardly be called a system.
Stirner-style egoism isn’t incompatible with agorist tactics. You’ve become a dogmatist-ironically, you’re making Stirner’s egoism into a fixed idea, a spook.
The whole thing is kind of silly, because agorism does not present some sort of absolute moral imperative to perpetually engage in civil disobedience whenever one can. It’s a strategic notion that emphasizes market-based civil disobedience, but it doesn’t specifically outline a structured program for what an individual ought to do or what particular way an individual may practically nullify the effectiveness of the political system and particular laws.
In some instances, it may very well be counterproductive to engage in civil disobedience, insofar as it just brings the hammer down on oneself or one goes about it in a way that explicitly amounts to taunting. But to the extent that one can engage in it without the hammer, while creating an environment in which the hammer is less likely to be there, it can work just fine and it would make no sense to declare it pragmatically against anyone’s self-interest. William is shadowboxing.
The whole thing is kind of silly, because agorism does not present some sort of absolute moral imperative to perpetually engage in civil disobedience whenever one can
meh whateves, agorism is insane and inane on many levels. The ethics was a bit of a side bar.
Stirner-style egoism isn’t incompatible with agorist tactics. You’ve become a dogmatist-ironically, you’re making Stirner’s egoism into a fixed idea, a spook.
That is really the only thing people say about Stirner, which is kind of funny. Disagreeing with a tactic or incoherent babel makes me a fixed idea Stirnerite.
I’m not saying that Stirner’s ideas are dogmatic, or that you’re being dogmatic for opposing agorism. I’m saying that your criticisms of agorism are based on a sort of knee-jerk opposition to anything that seems too much like a higher cause. Agorism, in the sense of ideologically aware counter-economics, does not require an ideological commitment to any sort of moralistic dogma. Also, don’t just call something “insane and inane” without explaining why. Insults are not arguments.
1. Why is agorism insane and inane? Insults are not arguments.
a) It already reeks of a “let’s get together gang”, “we gotta do something” atheist protestant universalist left wing social signaling device, which is amusing. I honestly picture the wheels grinding in Konkin’s thinking about how intellectuals need to “have action” and coming up with this turkey.
b) It is a pretentious word. There is no need to be making up Hellenistic words to try to give an incoherent idea weight
c) If all it is doing is stating that black markets are not morally bad and can potentially profit someone, than it states nothing that 99% of all small business owners know and do anyway.
e) if it is some form of intellectual masturbation that is actively encouraging wide eyed left wing patriots to seek out black markets for freedom, this could cause a lot of damage to the poor SOB taking such advice. Black markets are not inherently desirable, and there is NO REASON to seek them out if you don’t have to. Honestly, none what so ever. If you want to grow pot in your college dorm, sell it to to your bud, and wave your agorist flag, fine I guess, it just seems a bit silly.
2. I’m calling you a dogmatic egoist for your presumption that agorism is universalizing and moralistic in the way that Stirner 's egoism oppose
I may have been unclear, but I meant to imply it can’t calculate what is good for, just like morality, socialism, etc. I wanted to stress that one ought to really question why they are doing what they are doing. I said early the point was to illustrate to “check oneself before they wreck themself”
3. Stirnerite egoism is an influence of mine
Awesome, “it is always nice to talk to a clever man”