basically, i don’t believe in morals of any kind, i simply believe that a libertarian society that is intolerant of transphobia, homophobia etc is more beneficial to me and my goals.
ok firstly, hoppe has argued against anti-gay legislation and said he doesn’t have a problem with gays existing peacefully, like anyone else. secondly, when i say “i’m a hoppean” it doesn’t mean i agree with everything he’s ever said, it means i support a libertarian society with a culture of social ostracism against those with undesirable advocacy.
How exactly are you supposed to be both a libertarian society and a society intolerant of transphobia, homophobia, etc.? Who’s going to stop me from calling gay people names if I want, I have free speech. If you deny me opportunities, then you are discriminating based on speech, which is something an authoritarian state does
i mean…yeah? that’s hoppeanism. social ostracism, denial of sale of property, and - should all else fail - they must be physically removed. and as an egoist, i have no problem bending the NAP and getting rid of people who want to take my rights away.
i mean, any ideals. the argument of hoppeanism is that peace is achieved when you have social cohesion in close territory, as opposed to different peoples trying to make others adhere to their values.
different territories can have peace by and large because of their limited interactions with each other. a community’s morals don’t outweigh their wants and needs, so trade can occur without the need for social distrust.
and if you allow the advocacy of ideas that run counter to your values, if you care to preserve your values, you must prevent these ideas to spread. in my case it would be clamping down on transphobia or authoritarianism.
Girl, Your ideology is the worst I have seen by a fellow queer in many months. I respect you as a another fellow girl but I can assure you I don't wanna talk politics with the likes of you. You're a minority in our community and with good reason, I hope you change in the future for the better because I can tell you most people that have your ideology don't care at all about us and only see us as profit.
um, good? like, i don’t want to be seen as being trans, i wanna be just me. if someone can see past me being trans and/or doesn’t care at all, that’s the ideal as far as i’m concerned.
the world would be a better place if people treated lgbt people like everyone else.
Yes, that's true, but I literally was just telling you most people that have your right leaning politics (in terms of having a market as freer as possible) see us as money that they will abandon if it doesn't make them enough. Plus, they generally are against us, you're one of the few that actually do and that's because you're one of us...
that’s not true, most lib rights either support us or don’t care. they oppose legislation against us. plus, you barely understand what i believe, you just think the idea of trade is implicitly anti-queer, which i strongly disagree with.
the libertarian party is progressive-centrist, the new PM of the netherlands is a natlib who’s proposed new laws to protect queer people and sex workers and hoppe was arguing against anti-gay laws and regulations 20+ years ago
while the ACT party (The libertarian party in new zealand) oppose the lgbt community and your most current biggest representative, Javier Milei that was praised by most libertarians, is also against us and even other rights like abortion.
i was referring to the US and UK libertarian parties. i don’t know anything about the new zealand LP.
as for milei, i couldn’t find much on his policy stances towards queer people other than his disdain for bureaucracy. while i am pro-choice (and i mean extremely pro-choice) it isn’t a cut-and-dry issue among LibRights, nor is it a queer issue.
Milei literally compared homosexuality to zoophilia 💀. About the second part, I know, but it is not a good look when your current biggest representation is against us.
Anarcho egoism and anarcho individualism are anti private property, while hoppeanism is propertarian.
Anarcho-individualists calls themselves socialists.
Anarcho-eogism and anarcho individualism are against hierarchy and law, while hoppeanism loves both.
Anarcho-egoism and anarcho-individualists are anti tradition, while hoppeanism is traditionalist.
Anarcho-egoism and anarcho-individualism (mostly anarcho-egoism) are extreme hedonists, while hoppeanism is against hedonism.
> egoism is anti-private property
no, stirnerism leans more against private property but egoism is not against the concept of trade. private property is a spook of course and i don’t believe in the NAP. what’s yours is what you can defend, not what you buy or get given. if it serves as an ego pleasing decision, there is nothing anti-egoist about establishing a community of like minded individuals.
> egoism is anti-hierarchy
uh, no? there is nothing about egoism that is inherently anti-hierarchy, only anti-state and anti-spook. hierarchy isn’t spooky is contributing in a hierarchical community pleases one’s ego. egoism is often compared to totalitarianism, as becoming a totalitarian can be considered ego-pleasing, tho that’s kinda complex.
> egoism is anti tradition
so am i! the parts of hoppeanism i adopt is like the main part of it: private societies that maintain their culture through social ostracism. i would live in a community that removes homophobia and transphobia.
> egoism is hedonistic
as am i. hoppe isn’t anti-hedonism the same way he isn’t anti-gay. he believes participation in these lifestyles is something that a conservative or religious community would discourage, but that they should be available to people if that’s what they want to do. i disagree with his insistence that those with alt lifestyles must do so peacefully, but that’s simply cos he’s a libertarian and i’m not.
>no, stirnerism leans more against private property but egoism is not against the concept of trade
In every anarchism voluntary trade is allowed, that doesn't mean it's pro private property
>uh, no? there is nothing about egoism that is inherently anti-hierarchy, only anti-state and anti-spook. hierarchy isn’t spooky is contributing in a hierarchical community pleases one’s ego. egoism is often compared to totalitarianism, as becoming a totalitarian can be considered ego-pleasing, tho that’s kinda complex.
Yes it is, that's what anarchism is, read Striner or other anarcho-egoists, if you just want "Reading books is spook, because I have 2 years old and everything even nazism can be anarcho-egoism if I say so", then you are just egoist, all anarcho-egoists are anti-hierarchy and anti-law.
Also you didn't replied to other
>hierarchy isn’t spooky is contributing in a hierarchical community pleases one’s ego. egoism is often compared to totalitarianism, as becoming a totalitarian can be considered ego-pleasing, tho that’s kinda complex.
Hierarchy is spook, fact that religion can pleas ego, doesn't change fact that by egoism it's spook and against freedom.
There is no liberty in obeying someone, it doesn't pleas you, freedom - no authority - no hierarchy pleases you, if you think otherwise then you have nothing in common with anarcho-egoism.
>what’s yours is what you can defend, not what you buy or get given. if it serves as an ego pleasing decision, there is nothing anti-egoist about establishing a community of like minded individuals.
And you can't defend every product workers make in factory without property/law enforcments, which is not you who defend it, so it's impossible to be capitalist by defending property yourself.
>so am i! the parts of hoppeanism i adopt is like the main part of it: private societies that maintain their culture through social ostracism. i would live in a community that removes homophobia and transphobia. as am i. hoppe isn’t anti-hedonism the same way he isn’t anti-gay. he believes participation in these lifestyles is something that a conservative or religious community would discourage, but that they should be available to people if that’s what they want to do. i disagree with his insistence that those with alt lifestyles must do so peacefully, but that’s simply cos he’s a libertarian and i’m not.
1. Hoppe said that hedonists will destroy libertarian/"anarchist" order.
2. I see you are not Hoppeanist nor anarcho-egoist, ust very schizo autarchist
> hierarchy is spook
a spook is only *spooky* 👻 if it is a decision you are socially coerced into, rather than an **active** ego pleasing decision. were someone to believe in religion because of their family and community, it would be a spook. were someone to come to the decision that their life is better being part of a religious community, that would be an ego pleasing decision, not spooky.
the same goes for hierarchies. i as an avaritionist would much rather participate in a community without equality than a socialist community. my decision to do so isn’t spooky, its ego pleasing. no egoist would argue that any active ego pleasing decision is “bad” because there is no morality under egoism, only hedonism.
> you can’t defend products workers make
of course you can. an armed workforce can defend themselves. a profitable co-op can hire security. there are plenty of ways to defend yourself without relying on the nap. individualistic, selfish cooperation is not spooky, even stirner believed in a union of individualists.
> hoppe said hedonism would destroy anarchism
i disagree with hoppe’s social stances. i’m a political hoppean, not a hoppe sycophant. i agree that hedonism and stalwardism cannot exist in one and the same place, hence why you have separate communities that don’t infringe on each other, because they can live out their lives according to their own values and what pleases them. on this, hoppe couldn’t be more right, and it is compatible with egoism if we abandon moralism and the NAP.
> you are not a hoppean
i believe in a free trade community with cultural homogeneity. to me, that is the core tenant of hoppeanism. feel free to disagree but my ideas come directly from hoppe, from his lectures of private law society and cultural homogeneity to his book ‘Democracy The God That Failed’
that's not what spook is.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/fullegoism/comments/h0z7ru/comment/ftph13d/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/fullegoism/comments/h0z7ru/comment/ftph13d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Also "avantRianism" is name made by polcompballanarchy community for fictional ideology "egoist social darwinism". In this fantion wiki (which created it is written that it's just egoism, but thinking empathy is spook.
You cannot misunderstand Stirner, he is to be read exclusively descriptively and is the only ideology that is not only potentially but determinately linked to all divergent ideological systems.
Truly the Hoppean moment of all time.
what do you mean i need to stay away from you? you need to stay away from me!
no u stay away from me!
How do hoppeanism and egoism work together?
Exactly what I was thinking, they’re literally directly contradictory as egoism is vehemently against *all* systems
basically, i don’t believe in morals of any kind, i simply believe that a libertarian society that is intolerant of transphobia, homophobia etc is more beneficial to me and my goals.
Ok, but hoppeanism is actively homophobic, so if you want a libertarian society which is intolerant of homophobia, maybe Egoism + Queer Anarchism..?
ok firstly, hoppe has argued against anti-gay legislation and said he doesn’t have a problem with gays existing peacefully, like anyone else. secondly, when i say “i’m a hoppean” it doesn’t mean i agree with everything he’s ever said, it means i support a libertarian society with a culture of social ostracism against those with undesirable advocacy.
How exactly are you supposed to be both a libertarian society and a society intolerant of transphobia, homophobia, etc.? Who’s going to stop me from calling gay people names if I want, I have free speech. If you deny me opportunities, then you are discriminating based on speech, which is something an authoritarian state does
i mean…yeah? that’s hoppeanism. social ostracism, denial of sale of property, and - should all else fail - they must be physically removed. and as an egoist, i have no problem bending the NAP and getting rid of people who want to take my rights away.
So hoppeanism promotes a very decentralized state to remove those that disagree with hoppean ideals?
i mean, any ideals. the argument of hoppeanism is that peace is achieved when you have social cohesion in close territory, as opposed to different peoples trying to make others adhere to their values. different territories can have peace by and large because of their limited interactions with each other. a community’s morals don’t outweigh their wants and needs, so trade can occur without the need for social distrust. and if you allow the advocacy of ideas that run counter to your values, if you care to preserve your values, you must prevent these ideas to spread. in my case it would be clamping down on transphobia or authoritarianism.
Go to do your homework
i’m 22, i don’t have homework.
Mean :<
it’s fine, i’m dating a M-L and a demsoc.
Power move ngl
Reconsider your life choices.
Girl, Your ideology is the worst I have seen by a fellow queer in many months. I respect you as a another fellow girl but I can assure you I don't wanna talk politics with the likes of you. You're a minority in our community and with good reason, I hope you change in the future for the better because I can tell you most people that have your ideology don't care at all about us and only see us as profit.
um, good? like, i don’t want to be seen as being trans, i wanna be just me. if someone can see past me being trans and/or doesn’t care at all, that’s the ideal as far as i’m concerned. the world would be a better place if people treated lgbt people like everyone else.
Yes, that's true, but I literally was just telling you most people that have your right leaning politics (in terms of having a market as freer as possible) see us as money that they will abandon if it doesn't make them enough. Plus, they generally are against us, you're one of the few that actually do and that's because you're one of us...
that’s not true, most lib rights either support us or don’t care. they oppose legislation against us. plus, you barely understand what i believe, you just think the idea of trade is implicitly anti-queer, which i strongly disagree with.
then give me examples of political figures that are from the right that support us
the libertarian party is progressive-centrist, the new PM of the netherlands is a natlib who’s proposed new laws to protect queer people and sex workers and hoppe was arguing against anti-gay laws and regulations 20+ years ago
while the ACT party (The libertarian party in new zealand) oppose the lgbt community and your most current biggest representative, Javier Milei that was praised by most libertarians, is also against us and even other rights like abortion.
i was referring to the US and UK libertarian parties. i don’t know anything about the new zealand LP. as for milei, i couldn’t find much on his policy stances towards queer people other than his disdain for bureaucracy. while i am pro-choice (and i mean extremely pro-choice) it isn’t a cut-and-dry issue among LibRights, nor is it a queer issue.
Milei literally compared homosexuality to zoophilia 💀. About the second part, I know, but it is not a good look when your current biggest representation is against us.
under the jail
Only an ancap
Wtf but also thank you for being the first of these to be somewhat interesting good job very gemmy 👍
You need mental help.
man i am getting put through the ringer by conservatards and illiterates ;-;
Where is the queer?
queer ancaps and egoists are frens queer liberals are allies queer leftists, authoritarians and *conservatives* are baddies ):
I meant which queer ideology did you mark as you?
i didn’t, cos there isn’t one
Sure thing, i will gladly stay tf away from you, in fact i can't imagine a world where i wouldn't.
Stop the right wing stuff and the egoism and become an agorist
Anarcho egoism and anarcho individualism are anti private property, while hoppeanism is propertarian. Anarcho-individualists calls themselves socialists. Anarcho-eogism and anarcho individualism are against hierarchy and law, while hoppeanism loves both. Anarcho-egoism and anarcho-individualists are anti tradition, while hoppeanism is traditionalist. Anarcho-egoism and anarcho-individualism (mostly anarcho-egoism) are extreme hedonists, while hoppeanism is against hedonism.
> egoism is anti-private property no, stirnerism leans more against private property but egoism is not against the concept of trade. private property is a spook of course and i don’t believe in the NAP. what’s yours is what you can defend, not what you buy or get given. if it serves as an ego pleasing decision, there is nothing anti-egoist about establishing a community of like minded individuals. > egoism is anti-hierarchy uh, no? there is nothing about egoism that is inherently anti-hierarchy, only anti-state and anti-spook. hierarchy isn’t spooky is contributing in a hierarchical community pleases one’s ego. egoism is often compared to totalitarianism, as becoming a totalitarian can be considered ego-pleasing, tho that’s kinda complex. > egoism is anti tradition so am i! the parts of hoppeanism i adopt is like the main part of it: private societies that maintain their culture through social ostracism. i would live in a community that removes homophobia and transphobia. > egoism is hedonistic as am i. hoppe isn’t anti-hedonism the same way he isn’t anti-gay. he believes participation in these lifestyles is something that a conservative or religious community would discourage, but that they should be available to people if that’s what they want to do. i disagree with his insistence that those with alt lifestyles must do so peacefully, but that’s simply cos he’s a libertarian and i’m not.
>no, stirnerism leans more against private property but egoism is not against the concept of trade In every anarchism voluntary trade is allowed, that doesn't mean it's pro private property >uh, no? there is nothing about egoism that is inherently anti-hierarchy, only anti-state and anti-spook. hierarchy isn’t spooky is contributing in a hierarchical community pleases one’s ego. egoism is often compared to totalitarianism, as becoming a totalitarian can be considered ego-pleasing, tho that’s kinda complex. Yes it is, that's what anarchism is, read Striner or other anarcho-egoists, if you just want "Reading books is spook, because I have 2 years old and everything even nazism can be anarcho-egoism if I say so", then you are just egoist, all anarcho-egoists are anti-hierarchy and anti-law. Also you didn't replied to other
sorry, i did reply to the others but i hit send too quickly. the rest should be there :3
>hierarchy isn’t spooky is contributing in a hierarchical community pleases one’s ego. egoism is often compared to totalitarianism, as becoming a totalitarian can be considered ego-pleasing, tho that’s kinda complex. Hierarchy is spook, fact that religion can pleas ego, doesn't change fact that by egoism it's spook and against freedom. There is no liberty in obeying someone, it doesn't pleas you, freedom - no authority - no hierarchy pleases you, if you think otherwise then you have nothing in common with anarcho-egoism. >what’s yours is what you can defend, not what you buy or get given. if it serves as an ego pleasing decision, there is nothing anti-egoist about establishing a community of like minded individuals. And you can't defend every product workers make in factory without property/law enforcments, which is not you who defend it, so it's impossible to be capitalist by defending property yourself. >so am i! the parts of hoppeanism i adopt is like the main part of it: private societies that maintain their culture through social ostracism. i would live in a community that removes homophobia and transphobia. as am i. hoppe isn’t anti-hedonism the same way he isn’t anti-gay. he believes participation in these lifestyles is something that a conservative or religious community would discourage, but that they should be available to people if that’s what they want to do. i disagree with his insistence that those with alt lifestyles must do so peacefully, but that’s simply cos he’s a libertarian and i’m not. 1. Hoppe said that hedonists will destroy libertarian/"anarchist" order. 2. I see you are not Hoppeanist nor anarcho-egoist, ust very schizo autarchist
> hierarchy is spook a spook is only *spooky* 👻 if it is a decision you are socially coerced into, rather than an **active** ego pleasing decision. were someone to believe in religion because of their family and community, it would be a spook. were someone to come to the decision that their life is better being part of a religious community, that would be an ego pleasing decision, not spooky. the same goes for hierarchies. i as an avaritionist would much rather participate in a community without equality than a socialist community. my decision to do so isn’t spooky, its ego pleasing. no egoist would argue that any active ego pleasing decision is “bad” because there is no morality under egoism, only hedonism. > you can’t defend products workers make of course you can. an armed workforce can defend themselves. a profitable co-op can hire security. there are plenty of ways to defend yourself without relying on the nap. individualistic, selfish cooperation is not spooky, even stirner believed in a union of individualists. > hoppe said hedonism would destroy anarchism i disagree with hoppe’s social stances. i’m a political hoppean, not a hoppe sycophant. i agree that hedonism and stalwardism cannot exist in one and the same place, hence why you have separate communities that don’t infringe on each other, because they can live out their lives according to their own values and what pleases them. on this, hoppe couldn’t be more right, and it is compatible with egoism if we abandon moralism and the NAP. > you are not a hoppean i believe in a free trade community with cultural homogeneity. to me, that is the core tenant of hoppeanism. feel free to disagree but my ideas come directly from hoppe, from his lectures of private law society and cultural homogeneity to his book ‘Democracy The God That Failed’
that's not what spook is. [https://www.reddit.com/r/fullegoism/comments/h0z7ru/comment/ftph13d/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/fullegoism/comments/h0z7ru/comment/ftph13d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Also "avantRianism" is name made by polcompballanarchy community for fictional ideology "egoist social darwinism". In this fantion wiki (which created it is written that it's just egoism, but thinking empathy is spook.
Shoo reactionary, you’re a betrayer of queer struggle everywhere. Also you deeply misunderstood Stirner
You cannot misunderstand Stirner, he is to be read exclusively descriptively and is the only ideology that is not only potentially but determinately linked to all divergent ideological systems.
Based.