Favorite Highlights

Join Favorite Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Stefan's read, .

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest.

The Anarchist Handbook

Michael Malice, Murray Rothbard, Max Stirner, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, David Friedman, Peter Kropotki...

Ob eine Politik ‚sozial‘ genannt wird, ist irrelevant. Da die Politik Zwang einsetzt, steht sie im Gegensatz zum Libertarismus (und wirkt tatsächlich *unsozial*, weil die Intervention Menschen schadet). Linkslibertär ist daher ein Oxymoron, also ein selbstwidersprüchliches Wort. Dies gilt aber nicht nur für sozial oder links genannte Politik. Auch national oder rechts ausgerichtete Politik steht im Widerspruch zum Libertarismus. Gleiches gilt für ökologisch oder weltanschaulich orientierte Politik. Das Wesen *jeder* Politik ist Zwang gegenüber jenen, die freiwillig anders handeln würden, und daher mit Libertarismus unvereinbar. Wer linke Positionen politisch (also mit Zwang gegen den Willen einiger Menschen) durchsetzen will, ist ebenso wenig ein Libertärer, wie jener, der rechte Positionen auf diesem Wege durchsetzen will. Man kann politisch links, politisch rechts *oder* libertär sein. „Linkslibertäre“ gibt es daher ebenso wenig wie „Rechtslibertäre“.

Links- Und Rechtslibertäre? Gibt’s Nicht!

Rainer Fassnacht

To break down some of the beliefs that almost everyone else in history had, except us, and took to be completely obvious, which are taboo to question today. The first is that there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Next, there is some inherent biological reality behind class, race, and ethnicity, that progress is not some natural law of the universe, but something that only occurs under certain incentive structures, which are rare throughout history. Family, community, and nation are the bedrock of social life, and war is a nasty part of the human condition that we have to accept. Equality doesn’t really exist, and some things are innately better than others. The highest levels of beauty, achievement, and greatness are pulled from the divine, while the lowest levels are pulled from demonic forces. These do not exist physically in the way we describe, but are underlying archetypal principles or forms that operate over physical matter. Human nature is inherently corruptible and requires social traditions to keep us in check. There is a spirit world and God, and the human soul and consciousness is a force in its own right. Human life and happiness are predicated less upon material wealth and more upon social relations or values. The universe is a self-reflective emergent phenomenon that adapts to different situations. To frame this: literally everyone else in history besides us believed all of that. Even the most educated people in the West at the start of World War I believed most of the things I mentioned above. Literally every other era in history besides that believed in them.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told

Whatifalthist

...catch up on these, and many more highlights

Readwise.

Join Favorite Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Stefan's read, .

LEARN

EXPLORE

CONTACT