This man was right absolutely everything and the best minds on the planet still can't refute him

>stirner was most definately [ideological leaning]
No, he wasn't

>Well clearly not because he frequently said over and over again that party politics was bollocks as was economics and aspiring to collective society.
This does not bar him from being left.

>Stirner was against though. He was an *indivimdualist anarchist*, not a collective one.
Nor does this. He's an ultra individualist and thus opposed to any hierarchical system ergo, lefty.

Fucking burgers have ruined the left/right dichotomy by thinking left = american liberal.

>anarchist
No he wasn't. He had no problem with the concept of governance but merely the idea that it was something more than it was, a bunch of people making rules.

so what's this guy's schtick? everything I've heard about him is 'spook this, spook that'.
Anybody mind giving me a quick rundown?

>tfw can't immerse myself into games with morality systems anymore because of stirner

Anarchists, or at least anarchists who have read anarchist theory, don't oppose governance insofar as its purely administrative and non-hierarchical.

And Stirner would have an issue with governance to the extent that its a body trying to enforce its will over him.

There are two core principles that I can see:
First is the idea that all decisions should be rational and formed on the basis of the situation.
That is to say that abstractions such as nationalism, liberalism, ideology in general, religion, family, love or anything that isn't immediately physical should not impede your judgement process without consideration. These were considered spooks. Spooks are basically just warrants, if you're familiar with that argumentative model. The difference being that the warrents he took issue were specifically the abstract.
This led the the second point.
The importance of the self. No abstraction should come before the self. All decisions should extend from the honest and legitimate desires of the ego. That is to say, that abstractions like religion or 'morals' should not be able to perscribe beahviour onto that you wouldn't otherwise desire.

He'd be chaotic neutral

>A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

His whole stchick is "spooks." He's the obscure "spooky spook guy."

Yes and no. Governance doesn't need to be imposed, it can be volunatarily participated in. He had no issue with hierachy but more the idea that the abstraction of heirachy implied that he couldn't do whatever he wanted.

E.g at work
>boss gives jobs to workers
>they do job so they can eat

Stirner
>I go to the boss for a job because I want to eat
>he tells me to do something that I don't want to do
>he is the boss but his authority beyond my willing participation is a spook
>I tell him no
>he may or may not fire me

So he was basically an utilitarian then?

No. That would imply the greatest good for the greatest people.
To paraphrase some lecture: To him, were he unemplyed the the unemployment rate would be 100%. The collective is irrelevant. If things aren't working for the individual then they aren't working and the individual should seek to improve their outcomes.

Basically he's against willingly accepting being the sacrificial lamb. If you're the only person who the system fucked a lot of collective philosophy would say GOOD, the system is helping everyone through your sacrifice. Stirner says, fuck that 'systems' don't exist and you'll never physically experience a collective, they're abstractions, spooks and don't exist. You need to do what is right for you and live life true to your wants and desires.

There's also a bit where you cannot let any one desire consume you as indulgence/addiction is also an impedence on the ego making rational descions.

Go home, /leftypol/.

Though, personally speaking I think it WOULD result in the greatest good for the greatest people by deafault. If no one participated in things that didn't value them, profit them or aligned with their desires there would be no maytrs, no milgram-esque followers or anything like that.

Rather than a perscriptive world where you alter your desire and behaviour to gain and continue membership to groups (e.g political alliegiance: we act this way and believe these things. If you want in you must too) most colaboration would be descriptive (e.g I like golf, if you want to play we should have a game sometime).

People would be measured openly on the content of their character not their dedication to cohesion. With the strings of abstraction but loose we are left with our physical experience. No should and shouldn't just want and do not want.

but aren't spooks a spook

Stirner didnt really care about rationality. Emotions is just as good of a justification as any. He rightout mocks people who only act rational even to the point of going against their own selfintrest.