Civil rights is a spook

Morality isn't subjective, you have to insert subjectivity into morality for it to even appear subjective.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_Have_Consequences

If youre gonna look at things like an edgy autist, its expensive and time consuming to constantly put down rebellions.

It usually takes significantly less work and investment to provide some modicum of equality to preserve stability.

Youre basically paying universal sufferage and equality to not have to deal with rebellions, unpopularity all the time.

Doesnt have to do with morality at all, theres a clear benefit to these costs.

Does it though? Are democracies really more stable than authoritarian regimes? Compare Ukraine to Belarus.

Look at the USA. We just had an election and people were chimping out in major cities all across america. Isn't that a form of rebellion?

>clashes with the interest
You've predefined the interests of people other than yourself. To assume they simply should have such interests is to claim they ought to follow some spook.

Sometimes i'm convinced Veeky Forums only reads Stirner as well as Hitler read Nietzsche.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying but the author seems to be saying axioms are just choices but we should treat them as if they are not because consequentialism.

To me that could not be further from an objective morality because its not grounded in an absolute.

no

Chickenshit liberal amerifats bought into the nonviolent resistance meme

>interest
Spook
>the bottom 80%
Spook
>top 20%
Spook
>I still fail to see
Spook
>things
Spook
>civil equality
Spook
>spooky
DEFINITELY a spook
>wall street banker
Spook
>economy
Why can't I hold all these spooks?
>desire
Major league spook
>poor
muh spoops
>single mother
Return of the spook
>welfare queen
Spookchan.org
>right
Gigantic spook
>vote
Le spoopy 4head maymay of angst

But I will add however, there are evils to the civil rights movement in general.

Namely, communism.

youtu.be/IShbhepwieA

> reads Stirner

There's your mistake

Better to be at top of a stable system than slightly higher on an unstable system.
Long term I don't think elites have learned this and they'll push it too far eventually.

I think many future advances in tech will benefit the elites much more than the masses.

This is a clear contemporary example of what happens when you dont actually provide some tangible benefit to the lower classes, only empty platitudes or advancement of "other" groups at the expense of the natives.

Most anyone understands that there will always be the rich and powerful and I think most of those people are fine so long as they get something in their lives to make up for it.

Whether its bread and circuses or decent paying jobs. When that falls through the social contract of ruler and ruled is broken.

Democracy at least has non violent outlets for frustration and concerns.

Because the other 80% can bash their teeth in if they dont

No no, just read what the book is about.

What you're doing btw, is pretending like I typed nothing at all.

Compared to absolute monarchies or dictatorships, yes they are far more stable and prosperous.

as for the many unstable democracies, that can happen to any form of government, especially a corrupt one, which is another reason for the elites to favor rule of law.

Seems like a solid, physical requirement to me. Government is a spook, not wanting government to be able to legally attack you is not a spook.

read under "the decline of the west".

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_Have_Consequences

I did, I think it has a point but the reasoning is all wrong.

>What you're doing btw, is pretending like I typed nothing at all.

Because what you typed was nonsense.

In what way as the west declined other than embracing ideas that the author does not like?

Spengler created a whole system of observing the rise and fall of civilizations. He noted the West was in its decline phase using his system.

No, plainly speaking, to depart from the idea of morality requires one simply to deny themselves Godliness, for the sake of self servitude. At the heart of this extreme left/right garbage and even associating scientific achievement to atheism for example, as opposed to the liberties intrinsic in Christian society, is this very distancing oneself from moral composure. Morality is like a brick, it is complete onto itself, if you wanted for example to get water into the brick, you would have to bore a hole and pour it in, in the same way, you'd have to insert subjectivity into things that are already complete and established.

This desu famalam

>sterner posting
>2nd word is "should"
>shiggity

And why should the bottom 80% care about the 20% 'property rights'

>cuz it's not 500 BC anymore the average person has guns and can learn how to make an ied on the internet in 20 minut

>current year argument
>implying the masses would have access to the internet or resources to make IEDs
lol, get a load of this pleb, I bet he doesn't even put out his servants eyes!

Because they'll get killed otherwise.

That sounds like a good reason for those who control enough property that they can just hire someone to manage it to be worried.

We already know the very wealthy control the government, so we already know they threaten the majority to profit a minority.

>Morality is a brink? this comes as quite a surprise being as western philosophers have been arguing about what morality is and what is moral for over two thousand years.

Perhaps in context his system would be really convincing. But this is not

>Perhaps in context his system would be really convincing. But this is not

He didn't take exploitation of fossil fuel resources into account. The West may not survive the end of them, given that they are responsible for the conquest of the world by the West.

There isn't really any other argument except "subjective concepts of morality" and evolutionary animal traits where success of the group means increased chances of survival and reproduction.

no they have not. if they have, they're inserting subjectivity.

morality is written into the bible, and it is the word of God.

Subjective concepts of morality being inclusive of the fact that man is basically good, much better than mindless beasts, not to mention social, cultural, religious and historical factors.

Maybe the 20% don't actually care and wouldn't if they could get away with it. Or maybe they did care. If you took a survey they would definitely say they cared, but its upto you to believe it or not and is merely guesswork. You can't know whether there is heaven or not until you die.

Tell that to the French during the revolution

>.m

You're embarrassing yourself.

Stirner said civil rights were a spook, but not really for the reason you said. He said they were a spook because rights are only things people can force the state to give them and they'd be taken away at a moments notice if the state thought they could get away with it.

Perhaps you dont realize this but not every believes in God, and even less believe in the bible.

and even if it were true the bible doesn't solve the problems with the divine command model of morality, which has been torn apart since the days of Plato.

it's working in north Korea

You all follow spooks and if you deny that then you are just rationalizing your spooks.

>Considering the interest of the bottom 80% clashes with the interest of the top 20%

They align more than they clash. Nobody actually benefits long term from "keeping the people down."

then you misunderstand the purpose of the bible

if you feel I'm embarrassing myself, then you are too far removed from realizing the gargantuan disservice you are doing yourself. but hey, no one can force you to read it, or even try to understand it.

Disagreeing with the bible is not the same as misunderstanding it.

You think knowing the bible is knowing truth but it is not.

The fact that states literally did not declare independence this time is quite clear you are exaggerating

Plus i am sure the biggest chimpout will be from Trump supporters when he sells out hard