Author of quotes: Max Stirner. Page 2

Even if we assume the case that every single person in the people have expressed the same will, and if so would complete the "General will," the matter did not change. Is it my will expressed yesterday, would not bind me today and later? In this case, my will frozen be. What could be worse than constancy? My creation, that is, any definite expression of my will, would my master. I'm the Creator would be constrained in their will. And the fact that yesterday I was a fool, I would have to remain his entire life. So in the sphere of public life, I at best become a slave himself. Because yesterday I had a Willy, I limp today, yesterday, illegally, and today non-free.
How to change this? Just the fact that I recognize no such duty, that is, bind itself or allow itself to associate. If I don't have responsibilities, I don't know the law.

States exist only as long as there is a ruling will and this ruling will is considered ravnoznachnosti their own. The will of the ruler is law. That will help you your laws if no one follows, what are your orders, when no one allows you to order yourself? The state cannot waive the claims to determine the will of a single person and rely on his effect on her. For him absolutely necessary, that no one had one's own will; if anyone discovered such, the state would have to exclude (lock up, banish, etc.); if all had their individual will, they would destroy this state, because should it want to be master of all, whom it encloses, and this will call it a "public will". Who in order to exist, must rely on the apathy of others, he is a toy in the hands of others, as Mr. toy in the hands of his servants. If you stop submission, you will inevitably be destroyed, and domination.

If you take enjoyment, then it is your right, if you only harass him, not daring to directly capture it, it will remain "acquired right" of those who have the privilege of enjoyment. It is their right, as in the case of seizure it would be your right.

I decide - if I have something right; outside me, no right. What I feel is right, is right. It is possible that others it does not seem to be such, but that's their business, not mine: let them defend themselves. And if the whole world believed wrong that I think right and what I want, then I wouldn't have a care in the world. Does every one who can appreciate themselves, each to the extent it is selfish, for power above the law, with full right to do so.

Do Chinese citizens have the right to freedom? Grant them this right and you will see how bad you're wrong: they don't know how to use freedom, and therefore do not have the right to freedom, or, more precisely, they have no freedom, and therefore they have no right to freedom. Children are not eligible on age, because they are minors: that is because they are children. People, not have achieved full rights, are not entitled to full rights: after leaving the state of lawlessness, they acquire the right to sovereignty. In other words, what you become, then you have the right. All rights and all powers I draw in itself. I have a right to all that I can handle. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus, Jehovah, God, etc., if can do it, if cannot, then these gods will always remain relatively me right and strong, I'll have to bow to their right and power to powerless "fear of God" will have to abide by their commandments and I will consider myself right in everything I will do according to their law, as a Russian frontier guard feels entitled to shoot a fleeing from her suspicious of people acting on the orders of "higher authorities", that is, killing "as of right". I myself give myself the right to kill, yet I did not forbid myself until I will not avoid the murder, I will not be afraid of it as a "violation of law".

Communism believes that people "by nature have equal rights", refutes his own assertion that people do not have by nature no rights. He does not recognize that parents are "naturally" endowed with rights regarding children, or Vice versa, it abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, children no rights. Actually, all this is revolutionary, or babetskii, the base rests on religious, that is a false view. How can you recognize a right, not standing on a religious point of view? Is "right" is not a religious concept, i.e. something sacred? After all, "legal equality" proclaimed by the revolution, only a modified form of the "Christian equality", "equality of the brethren", the children of God, Christians, etc. - in short, the brotherhood.

The right of censorship. In order for the ECHR to recognize the justice, must be considered and the censorship law. But still, despite that, I think that the court gives a protection. Yes, the protection against errors of the individual censor: he defends censorship of the legislator from the misinterpretation of his will, but against the legislator even stronger claims act, telling him "the sacred power of law." If I'm right or not - nobody else can judge except myself. Others may judge and talk about is whether they recognize the right for me and whether it is right in their eyes.

Any existing law - foreign law, a right that I "give" "distribute me". But how can I be right just because everyone recognizes me, right? Meanwhile, what is right, which I am at the state or community gain, as not a right given to me by strangers? If the fool justifies me, I waver in righteousness: I don't want to fool justified me. But if the wise justifies me, it still will not be my righteousness. My rightness does not depend on the decisions of the fools and sages. Nevertheless, we still had coveted such innocence. We are looking for innocence and appeal to the court. What? To the king, the Church, the people's court. Whether the Sultan's court to resolve questions about the rightness differently than what the Sultan decided to consider right? If he could admit me right if it does not coincide with the concepts of the Sultan of the truth? For example, whether a court can recognize a valid solution of treason, if the Sultan does not recognize it as such? Can censorship the court to grant me freedom of speech and press, the right to freely Express their opinion, if the Sultan does not wish to recognize me such a right?
What this court can give me? He defends the correctness of the Sultan, not mine: I'll find someone else's right. And only if the foreign right in line with mine, I would also be right in this court.

In this threefold relation Lenno dependence is completely changed: from the Almighty "man" we get, first, fief of our power that is not called power or force, and "law", "human right".
Next: we receive from him in linen our position in the world, for he, the mediator, promotes us to communicate, which must therefore only be "humane". Finally: we receive from him in the linen ourselves, namely, our own value, or all that we are, for we are nothing if he does not live in us or if we are not "human". Power, world, I - everything belongs to "man."
But can't I declare myself, and Lord, and mediator, and in his own I?

Negative Holiness sends his forces against piety, fear of God would determine his attitude to all that he continued to be considered sacred. Does the Holy power of God or the person of the God-man, is, therefore, something sacred in the name of man (humanity), - this does not change the fear of God: after all, the man is revered as "Supreme being" to the same extent as in a special religious area God as "Supreme being", requires that we and fear, and reverence, and both of them inspire us with awe.
True piety has long been shaken, in common usage involuntarily became more or less conscious atheism, which is expressed externally in the broader development of "masterconnect". But what was taken from God and given to man, and the power of humanity grew as to downplay the influence and importance of godliness. Man as such is the current God and his earlier fear now gave way to fear of man.
But because man represents only another Supreme being, then, in essence, the Supreme Being was only some metamorphosis, and the fear of man is fear of God only modified.
Our atheists are pious.
If the so-called feudal era, we all received in fief from God, in the liberal period established a similar dependence on Lenno "man": first God was the Lord, now this gentleman was a man. God was the mediator now a mediator became man, God was a spirit now spirit became man.

The concept of the Jew too small for you, and the Jewish is not your task; to be a Greek, a German, is also not enough. But be a man, and you will receive it, consider the human to be his vocation.
Now I know what needs to be, and you can already install a new catechism. Again, the subject is subordinated to the predicate, individual - universal, again reinforced the domination of one idea should be the Foundation of a new religion. It is progress in the religious and Christian region, but this was not made a single step beyond this region.
The transition beyond this region leads to neizlechimoe. For me our poor language has no suitable words, and "Word" - the logos is for me "just a word".
Looking for define my essence. If not Jewish, German, etc., in any case, she's a man. "The man is my identity".
Myself I'm disgusting, ugly, I'm ugly and disgusted with myself, I get the mess to itself, himself or obnoxious never satisfy himself. From such feelings arise samorazvitie or self-criticism. Religion begins in self-denial and ends with completed criticism.

Blagovestnyy and the shrew can still evolve in line with their will - they are still on the way, "reasonable" and malleable man is "native", General requirements, etc., which for him is the law it is defined, because the genus for him is his "purpose", his "calling." If I turn its eyes on "mankind", mankind, in the pursuit of this ideal, or to God and Christ - this does not represent significant differences. Is it just that the first vague than the second. A single man, and all nature, and all that generation.

To be human does not mean to save the humans (abstract), and means to Express themselves, isolated. My goal should be not how I embody the universal, but how I satisfy myself. I myself - my family, I'm free from the norms, standard, etc. it is Possible that I will be able to do very little but that little is everything and it is better than what I give to make yourself others by violence on me, by the training of custom, religion, law, state, etc.

Abstract man is Man in General, and therefore he is everyone. So every man should own eternal rights of man, and, according to the Communists, to use them in a perfect "democratic" or rather, "anthropocentricism", system. But just when I have all that will get yourself, as a man I have nothing. Want all the benefits flowed into the hands of every person just because he wears the title of "man." I do the same with the accent on "I" - and not on the fact that I'm human.
Man - this is only my property (property), like masculinity or femininity. In the ancient world, the ideal was to be in the full sense of the word a man; the chief virtue was courage.
But what would we say about a woman who wants to be fully woman? It is not given to all, and for some it would be an unattainable goal. Femininity she still has from nature, it's her property, so that "true womanhood" she doesn't need.
I am human, just like the earth. In the same way as it would be ridiculous to assert that the task of the earth - to be "true planet", so it is ridiculous to impose on me as a vocation "the duty to be a" real man.