29 - My Intercourse - part 6 - The Ego and His Own - Max Stirner

Are you really buying a car online on Auto Trader right now?

Really, I can get super specific with dealer listings and see cars based on my budget.

You can really have it delivered.

Or pick it up.

Mommy, look!

Kid is walking up the slide.

Really?

Auto Trader.

Buy your car online, really.

At the UPS store, re-insure your small viz stand out

with a variety of high-quality paper stock options,

banners, posters for shores and more.

Most locations are independent leoned.

Product services pricing and hours of operation may vary.

See center for details.

The UPS store.

Be unstoppable.

Come into your local store today and get your print on.

Are you really buying a car online on Auto Trader right now?

Really, I can get super specific with dealer listings

and see cars based on my budget.

You can really have it delivered.

Or pick it up.

Mommy, look!

Kid is walking up the slide.

Really?

Auto Trader.

Buy your car online, really.

My intercourse part six.

Competition shows itself most strictly connected

with the principle of civism.

Is it anything else than equality,

equality, and is not equally a product of that same revolution,

which was brought on by the commonality, the middle classes?

As no one is barred from competing with all in the state,

except the prints because he represents the state itself.

And working himself up to their height.

Yes, overthrown all exploiting them for his own advantage,

soaring above them, and by stronger exertion

depraving them of their favourable circumstances.

This serves as the clear proof that before the state's judgment seat,

everyone has only the value of a simple individual,

and may not count on any favourism.

Outrun and outbid each other,

as much as you like and can, that shall not trouble me, the state.

Among yourselves, you are free in competing.

You are competitors, that is your social position.

But before me, the state, you are nothing but simple individuals.

What in the form of principle both theory was propounded as the equality of all has found here,

in competition, is realization and practical carrying out,

for air quality is free competition.

All are before a state, simple individuals, in society or in relation to each other,

competitors. I need be nothing further than a simple individual to be able to compete

with all others aside from the prince and his family.

A freedom which formerly was made impossible, by the fact,

that only by means of one's calculation, and within it, did one enjoy any freedom of effort.

In the guild and futility, the state is in an intolerant and fustitious attitude,

granting privileges in competition and liberalism.

It is in a tolerant and indulgent attitude.

Granting only patents, let us assuring the applicant, that the business stands open,

patent to him, or concessions.

Now, as the state has thus led everything to the applicants, it must come in conflict with all,

because each and all are entitled to make application.

It will be stormed, and will go down in the storm.

Is free competition, then merely free?

Nay, is it really a competition, to which one of persons, as it gives itself out to be,

because on this title, it bases its right?

It originated, you know, in persons becoming free of all personal rule.

Is a competition free, which a state, this ruler in the civic principle,

hens in by a thousand barriers?

There is a rich manufacturer, doing a brilliant business, and I should like to compete with him.

Go ahead, says the state.

I have no objection to make to your person as competitor.

Yes, I reply, but for that I need a space for buildings, I need money.

That's bad, but if you have no money, you cannot compete.

You must not take anything from anybody, for I protect property and grant it privileges.

Free competition is not free, because I lack the things for competition.

Against my person, no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my person

to must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer?

Why, from him I could take them away.

No, the state has then as property, the manufacturer, only as faith, as possession.

But since it is no use trying it with the manufacturer, I will compete with that professor

of jurisprudence. The man is a booby, and I, who know a hundred times more than he,

shall make his classroom empty. Have you ever studied and graduated, friend?

No, but what of that? I understand abundantly what is necessary for instruction in that department.

Sorry, the competition is not free here. Against your person, there is nothing to be said,

but the thing, the doctor's diploma, is lacking. And this diploma, I, the state, demand.

Ask me for it respectively, first, then we shall see what is to be done.

This, therefore, is the freedom of competition. The state, my lord, first qualifies me to compete.

But do persons really compete? No, they're game, things, only,

monies, in the first place, etc. In the rivalry, one will always be left behind another,

e.g., a parenthester behind a poet. But it makes a difference whether it means that the unlucky

competitor lacks a personal or material, and likewise whether the material means

can be won by personal energy, or are to be obtained, then we by grace, only as a present.

As when, e.g., the poor man must leave, i.e., present, to the rich man, his riches.

But if I must all along wait for the state's approval to obtain or to use, e.g., in the case

of graduation, then means I have the means by the grace of the state.

Free competition, therefore, has only the following meaning. To the state, all rank as its

equal children, and everyone can stud and run to earn the state's goods and largesse.

Therefore, all you chase after having's, holdings, possessions, be it of money or

offices, titles of honour, etc., after the things. In the mind of the commonality,

everyone is possessor or owner. Now, once comes it that the most have, in fact,

nets to nothing. From this, that the most are already joyful over being possessors at all,

even though it be of some rags, as children are joyful in their first trousers,

or even the first penny that is presented to them. More precisely, however, the matter is

to be taken as follows. Liberalism came forward at once with the declaration that it belonged to

man's essence, not to be property, but proprietor. As the consideration here was about man,

not about the individual, but how much, which formed exactly the point of the individual's special

interest, was left to him. Hence, the individual's egoism retained room for the

threeest play in this how much, and carried on an undisputable competition.

However, the lucky egoism had to become a snack in the way of the less fortunate,

and the latter still keeping its feet planted on the principle of humanity.

Cut forward the question, as to how much of possession, and answered it to the effect that

man must have as much as he requires. Will it be possible for my egoism to let itself be

satisfied with that? What man requires ventures, by no means a scale for measuring me and my needs?

For I may have used for less or more, I must rather have so much as I am competent to

appropriate. Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz, I'm the host of Big Technology podcast, a longtime reporter

and an on-air contributor to CNBC. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial

intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology,

I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it.

Asking where this is all going, they come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon,

and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices,

and meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast

wherever you get your podcasts. Competition suffers from the unfavorable circumstance

that the means for competing are not at everyone's command, because they are not taken from

personality, but from accident. Most are without means, and for this reason without goods.

Hence the socialists demand the means for all, and aim at a society that shall offer means.

Your money value says they we no longer recognise as your competence. You must show another

competence, to which you're working for. In the possession of a property, or as possessor,

man does suddenly show himself as man. It was for this reason that we let the possessor,

whom we called proprietor, keep his standing so long. Yet you possess the things only so long

as you are not put out of this property. The possessor is competent, but only so far as the

others are incompetent. Since you wear forms, your competence only so long as you are the

competent to defend it, i.e. as we are not competent to do anything with it. Look about you

for another competence. For we now, by our might, surpass your alleged competence.

It was an extra-ordinary large-game made when the point of being regarded as possessors was put

through. Therein Bond's service was abolished, and everyone who till then had been bound to

the Lord's service, and more or less had been his property, now became a Lord. But henceforth,

you're having, and what you have, are no longer adequate and no longer recognised, per

cruncher. You're working and your work rise in value. We now respect your subduing things.

As we formerly did, you're possessing them. Your work is your competence. You are Lord or

possessor, only of what comes by work, not by inheritance. But as at the time, everything

has come by inheritance. As every copper that you possess, there is not a labour stamp,

but an inheritance stamp. Everything must be melted over. But is my work then really, as the

communitists suppose, my sole competence, or does not this consist rather in everything that

I am competent for, and does not the workers society itself, have to concede this?

EG, in support of also the sick, children, old men, in short, those who are incapable of work,

these are still competent for a good deal, EG for instance, to preserve their life instead of

taking it. If they are competent to cause you to desire their continued existence,

they have a power over you. To him who exercised utterly no power over you, you would go

shave nothing. He might perish. Therefore, what you are competent for is your competence.

If you are competent to furnish pleasure to thousands, then fathers will pay you an honor

for it. But it would stand in your power to forbid doing it, hence they must purchase your deed.

If you are not competent to captivate anyone, you may simply starve.

Now and I, who are competent for much, for chance to have no advantage over them less competent.

We are all in the midst of abundance. Now shall I not help myself as well as I can,

but only wait and see how much is left me in an equal division. Against competition,

there rises up the principle of magma-fin society, partition. To be looked upon as the mere part,

part of society, the individual cannot bear, because he is more. His uniqueness puts from it

this limited concept. Hence he does not do wait his competence from the sharing of others,

and even in the worker society, there arises the misgiving that an equal partition, the strong,

will be exploited by the weak. He awaits his competence, rather from himself, and says now,

what I am competent to have, that is my competence. What competence does the child not possess in

its smiling, its playing, its streaming? In short, in its mere existence, are you capable of

restraining its desire, or do you not hold out to it as mother, your breast, as father,

as much of your possessions as it needs? It compares you, therefore it possesses what you call yours.

If your person is of consequence to me, you pay me with your very existence. If I am concerned

only with one of your qualities, then your compliance perhaps all your aid has a value,

a money value, for me, and I purchase it. If you do not know how to give yourself any other

than a money value in my estimation, then may arise the case of which history tells us,

that Germans, sons of the Fatherland, were sold to America. Should those who let themselves to

be traded in be worth more to the seller, he preferred the cash to this living where, but did not

understand how to make itself precious to him, but he discovered nothing more valuable in it,

was assuredly a defect of his competence, but it takes a road to give more than he has.

How should he show respect when he did not have it? No, hardly could have it for such a pack.

You behave egoistically when you respect each other neither as possessors nor as regular things,

or workers, but as part of your competence, useful bodies, then you will never give anything to

the possessor, for his possessions, nor to him who works, but only to him whom you require.

The North Americans asked themselves, do we require a king and answer, not a far being are he

and his work worked to us. If it is said that competition throws everything open to all,

the expression is not accurate, and it is better put thus, competition makes everything

purchasable. In abandoning it to them, competition leaves it to their appraisal, or their estimation and

demand a price for it, but there would be buyers mostly lack the means to make themselves buyers,

they have no money, for money then the purchasable things are indeed to be had, for money everything

is to be had, but it is exactly money that is lacking, where is one to get money, this covered

or circulating property, no then you have as much money as you have, might for you count,

but as much as you make yourself count for, one pays not the money, on which they may come a

lack, but with his competence, by which alone we are competent, for one is prepared to

only so far as the arm of power power features, weightling has brought out a new means of payment,

work, but the true means of payment remains as always competence, with what do you have with

any competence you pay, therefore they are only enlargement of your competence, this being admitted,

they are nevertheless right on hand again with the motto to teach according to his competence,

who is to give to me according to my competence, society, and I should have to put up with its

estimation, rather I should take according to my competence, all belongs to all, this proposition

brings from the same and substantial theory, to each belongs only what he is competent for,

if I say the world belongs to me, probably that too is empty talk, which has a meaning only in so far

as I respect no alien property, but to me belongs only as much as I am competent for, or have within

my competence, one is not worthy to have what one to weakness, let's be taken from him, one is

not worthy of it because one is not capable of it, they raised a mighty uproar over the wrong

of the thousand years, which is being committed by the rich against the poor, as if the rich were

to blame for poverty, and the poor were not in like manner responsible for riches,

is there another difference between the two than that of competence and incompetence,

of the competence and incompetence, wherein trade does the crime of the rich consist

in their hardheartedness, but who then have maintained the poor, who have cared for their

nourishment, who have given arms, those arms that have even the name from mercy,

have not the rich been merciful at all times, are they not to this day tender-hearted,

as poor taxes, hospitals, and gations of all sorts, etc. of proof, but all this does not satisfy

you, doubtless then, they are to share with the poor, now you are demanding that they

shall abolish poverty, aside from the point that there might be hardly one among you,

who would act so, and that this one would be of bold for it, do ask yourselves, why should the

rich let go their fleeces and give up themselves, thereby pursuing the advantage of the poor,

rather than their own. You, who have your fellow daily, are rich of thousands who live on

forebrosion. Is it for your interest to share with the thousands, or is it not rather for theirs?

With competition is connected, less the intention to do the thing best, and the intention to make

it as profitable, as productive as possible. Hence, people study to get into the civil

service, portfolio study, study, cringin and flattery, between and the acquaintance with business,

work for a parent. Hence, while it is apparently a matter of doing good service,

in truth only a good business and earning of money are looked out for. The job is done

only ostensensibly for the job's sake, but in fact on account of the growing that it yields,

one would indeed prefer not to be censored, but one wants to be advanced. One would like to judge

administer, etc., according to his best convictions, but one is afraid of transference,

or even dismissal, one must above all things live. Thus these goings on are a fight for

day life, and in gradation upward, for more or less of a good thing. And yet with all their

whole amount of toil and care brings in for most only bitter life and bitter poverty,

all of the bitter painstaking for this. Restless acquisition does not let us take breath,

take a calm enjoyment, we do not get the comfort of our possessions, but the organisation of

labour touches only such labour as others can do for us. Sortering, tillage, etc., the rest

remain egoistic, because no one can ingrusted, elaborate your musical compositions,

carry out your projects of painting, etc., nobody can replace Raphael's labours,

the latter are labours of a unique person, which only he is competent to achieve,

while the former deserves to be called human, since what is anybody's own in them is of

slight account, and almost any man can be chained to it. Now, as society can regard only labours

for the common benefit, human labours, he who does anything unique remains without its care.

Nay, he may find himself disturbed by his intervention. A unique person were working

self-forth at a society all right, but society brings forth no unique person. Hence, it is at any

rate helpful that we come to an agreement about human labours, that they may not, as under

competition, claim all our time and toil. So far, communism will bear its fruits. For before

the dominion of the commonality, even that for which all men are qualified, or can be qualified,

thus tied up to a few and withheld from the rest, it was a privilege. To the community,

it looked equitable to leave free all that seems to exist for every man, but because left free,

it was yet given to no one, but rather left to each to be got hold of by this human power.

By this, the mind was turned to the acquisition of the human, which henceforth,

declined to everyone, and there arose a movement, which one hears so loudly,

be moaned under the name of materialism. Communism seeks the check its course,

spreading the belief that the human is not worth so much discomfort and of sensible

arrangements could be gained without the great expense of time and powers, which has

here the two seemed requisite. But for whom is time to be gained? For what does man require more

time than is necessary to refresh his varied powers of labour? Here, communism is silent.

For what? To take comfort in himself, as the unique after he has done his part as a man?

In the first joy over being allowed to stretch out their hands toward everything human,

people forget to want anything else, and they competed away vigorously,

as if the possession of the human were the goal of all our ambitions,

but they have run themselves tired, and are gradually noticing that possession does not give happiness.

Therefore, they are thinking of obtaining the necessary by easier bargain,

and spending on it only so much time and toil, as its indispensableness exacts.

Which is for implies, as contended poverty, the carefree marathon becomes the seductive ideal.

Should such human activities, that everyone is confident of his capacity for,

be highly salaried, and sought for with toil and expenditure of all life forces,

even in the everyday form of speech, if I were a minister or even third, then it should go quite

otherwise. That confidence expresses itself, that one holds himself capable of playing the part

of such a dignitary. One does get a perception that, with things of this sort,

there belongs no uniqueness, but only a culture which is attainable, even if not exactly by

all, at any rate, by many, i.e. that was such a thing one need only be a ordinary man.

End of section 29

Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz. I'm the host of Big Technology podcast, a long time reporter and an

on-air contributor to CNBC. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial

intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology,

I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it,

asking where this is all going, to come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more.

So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices,

and meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast

wherever you get your podcasts.