Skip to main content
↑ Back to the start
7 months 2 weeks ago

Everything over which I have might that cannot be torn from me remains my property; well, then let might decide about property, and I will expect everything from my might! Alien might, might that I leave to another, makes me an owned slave: then let my own might make me an owner. Let me then withdraw the might that I have conceded to others out of ignorance regarding the strength of my own might! Let me say to myself, what my might reaches to is my property; and let me claim as property everything that I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me extend my actual property as far as I entitle, that is, empower, myself to take.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 227, 228
7 months 2 weeks ago

If religion has put forward the proposition that we are all of us sinners, I set another against it: we are all of us perfect! Because, in each moment, we are all we can be, and never need to be more.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Landstreicher, p. 226
7 months 2 weeks ago

But let the individual man lay claim to ever so many rights because Man or the concept man 'entitles' him to them, because his being man does it: what do I care for his right and his claim? If he has his right only from Man and does not have it from me, then for me he has no right. His life, for example, counts to me only for what it is worth to me. I respect neither a so-called right of property (or his claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the 'sanctuary of his inner nature' (or his right to have the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain un-aggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor, in the measure of my - might.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 219
7 months 2 weeks ago

History seeks for man: but he is I, you, we. Sought as a mysterious essence, as the divine, first as God, then as man (humanity, humaneness, and mankind), he is found as the individual, the finite, the unique one.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 217
7 months 2 weeks ago

If the church had deadly sins, the state has capital crimes; if the one had heretics, the other has traitors; the one ecclesiastical penalties, the other criminal penalties; the one inquisitorial processes, the other fiscal; in short, there sins, here crimes, there inquisition and here - inquisition. Will the sanctity of the state not fall like the church's? The awe of its laws, the reverence for its highness, the humility of its 'subjects', will this remain? Will the 'saint's' face not be stripped of its adornment?

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 211, 212
7 months 2 weeks ago

The republic is nothing whatever but - absolute monarchy; for it makes no difference whether the monarch is called prince or people, both being a 'majesty'.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 202, 203
7 months 2 weeks ago

Everything sacred is a tie, a fetter.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 192
7 months 2 weeks ago

The tiger that assails me is in the right, and I who strike him down am also in the right. I defend against him not my right, but myself.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
S. Byington, trans. (1913), p. 191
7 months 2 weeks ago

A people cannot be free otherwise than at the individual's expense; for it is not the individual that is the main point in this liberty, but the people. The freer the people, the more bound the individual; the Athenian people, precisely at its freest time, created ostracism, banished the atheists, poisoned the most honest thinker.

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 190
7 months 2 weeks ago

Liberty of the people is not my liberty!

0
⚖0
▼ Source
source
Cambridge 1995, p. 190

Works (Thanks to Project Gutenberg)

CivilSimian.com created by AxiomaticPanic, CivilSimian, Kalokagathia