@DissidentKitty@radical.town @substack
1/2
Yes, I agree, that is the case more often than not
BUT
I genuinely don't see the ideas I outlined above as supporting the notion that some people are *inherently* better than some others: that claim presupposes an objective, universally recognized set of values, independent from any one person - which isn't at all compatible with Stirner's extreme emphasis on the subjective nature of morals.
CONTINUES >>>
@DissidentKitty@radical.town @substack
2/2
CONTINUES >>>
Like, sure, there are people who are naturally *more powerful* than me in some areas: some could punch my chest in without breaking a sweat, others could outsmart me even while they are drunk. That gives them power over me, but it doesn't make them *better* than me: I don't have to recognize their dominion over me as *just*. I just need to bide my time until I can strike and be reasonably sure to win, possibly finding allies in other people who feel oppressed, because there is strength in numbers.
