Stirner is the very involuntary egoist he derides. Why do leftists still shill for this fraud?

>HOOMAN NATURE
Spooky. As for the rest of your post
>NUH-UH
I accept your concession.

you got blown the fuck out, user. own it.

You haven't read Stirner.

U did blow me pretty well user

You can disagree with Stirner's conclusions. I don't care. Stirner leaves room for that. It's subjective. If you read the book you would've noticed the massive attention to the nature of subjectivity. It's central. Stirner himself felt tremendous benevolence, and at many times in his life he attempted benevolent enterprises. He pushed for a Union of Egoists, the elevation of people to recognizing their own self-interest, out of benevolence AND because it was obviously in his self-interest to take down rich factory owners when he himself was barely financially solvent throughout his life.

You wanna be an Internet psychopath edgelord who jerks off to the film Wall Street? Go ahead, kiddo, but that sure as shit isn't in your self-interest, you delusional faggot.

The truth is Stirner isn't really saying anything about action, just motives. His Philosophy doesn't change anything. He elementary logic at best. Marx should have never felt a need to respond to Stirner, aka Jimmy Neutron. We need more Hegel threads

Stirner in a nutshell: Everone is self interested. Now go along with the revolution. I'll die alone and broke only to be remembers by a bunch of nobodies gathered nowhere.

>He pushed for a Union of Egoists, the elevation of people to recognizing their own self-interest, out of benevolence AND because it was obviously in his self-interest to take down rich factory owners when he himself was barely financially solvent throughout his life.
Now what would an egoist do once he realizes this union can be hoodwinked by him and controlled by him? You are naive and have misread Stirner.

Nice. You got blown out so you resort to shitposts and trolling. Pretty pathetic, kiddo. Nice chatting. Enjoy your pathetic excuse for a life while I'm busy riding my motorcycle and fucking super models. Call yourself an egoist lmfao.

Hegel makes it clear that to self interested you are still alienated, motivated by without. Absolute idealism posits the geist or world spirit available only to him whose interest can go beyond egoism, and it's this platform that He is able to move mountains, sway a people, speak for generations. Etc

I'm not the guy you think you are responding to, nice deflection btw. It's not trolling to assume an egoist would apply Stirner's ideas to his fellow egoists once this union has been established. You know how the system we are living under came about?

Then I'm astounded there are so many of you on this board too dense to understand the point. Yes, you take Stirner's philosophy as extending into Objectivism. STIRNER DOESN'T. Read a biography about the man's life, you retard. Benevolence is a subjectively experience thing. If you use a philosophy of self-interest to override your immediate emotional experience of guilt, kindness, etc, you have turned the philosophy of self-interest into a spook. Why don't you retards shitpost about Ayn Rand like back when this board was first started? Oh, because people will see how dumb you are right off the bat, and misinterpreting Stirner at his word, taking your own conclusions and pretending they are his, allows you to pretend sophistication.

Kys, fag.

>Stirner is the very involuntary egoist he derides

How so? What information led you to that conclusion?

I'm guessing it's in your self interest to get mad and talk like a belligerent retard

Your a shitty egoist user
Maybe reread Stirner

I enjoy it. Is it in your self-interest to act like a sassy New York jewish homosexual like every other millenial gaylord who grew up watching sitcoms? I take great joy in blowing the fuck out of ignorant shitheads and watching them fall back stuttering shitposts, memes and trolling.

>implying

Why are there so many involuntary dialectical materialists who apparently can't think beyond the assumption that life is fundamentally about the accumulation of capital and power? Stirner didn't think that. Very few people prior to the modern era did. Any half-way intelligent person should see their own interest is far broader than wealth. The emotional state of happiness (some faggot tells me only the English want to be happy thinking he's clever) is a fickle and difficult thing, and quite clearly, it seems to me, that's far more in MY self-interest than the pursuit of capital. These idiots think of themselves as ruthless, psychopathic automaton superhumans who aren't bound by their emotional experience. It is, in my expert opinion, a deranged power fantasy induced by deep feelings of insecurity and far too many action movies.

That's a spicy meatball.

>goyim, I-I started the communist party FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT

You're losing the argument. I liked the back and forth you and the other guy had until you refused to acknowledge the implications of Stirner's philosophy WRT controlling the Union of Egoists. Just because he was pushing to overcome the current power structure doesn't mean he was naive to what could replace it in the ensuing vacuum.

theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/

HOW ARE YOU SO FUCKING STUPID?

His only friends were a group of socialists. He tried to establish a co-operative milk shop.

The implication you draw Stirner does not. At best he'd be on guard AGAINST people misusing his philosophy in such a way, but the likeliest implication to draw - and it is pure conjecture since, I can at least draw the line between what he says and what he doesn't - is he just didn't think exploitation of a Union of Egoists possible because if everyone recognized their self-interest it's impossible to exploit them. So you imagine, then, I suppose, Stirner wrote the Ego and Its Own for a select few to enlighten them to ruthlessly pursue power? Was that in his self-interest?

STOP BEING SO STUPID.

If Stirner had any personal interest in power for himself, he went about it in the most retarded way imaginable - quitting a cushy job teaching to write a book that is deliberately incendiary to the point of parody which caused the censors not to censor it only because they thought it was so stupid, and which causes it to be misunderstood by adolescents on the Internet to this very day. What a power grab! Sent to debtors prison repeatedly; dying in near poverty.

What Stirner would've done if he espoused the beliefs you and others ascribe to him is not write the Ego and Its Own. Write something promoting the prevalent power of the day, glorifying it, suck up to established authority, hope they'll give him a better job, more pay.

No, in your mind, and their mind, Stirner must've written the Ego and Its Own for you. He wrote it to enable you to overcome the spooks - to pursue perfectly your ruthless self-interest to the detriment of everyone around you. Yes, that is what was in Stirner's self-interest. No phoney benevolence or de-spooked socialist inclination.

I cannot even communicate how stupid you are. I've written this and it's an utter joke because you won't understand it.

LITERALLY KILL YOURSELF

Oh look someone didn't actually read Stirner again.

Capitalists are spooked by the money, market, capital ect

>1. Max Stirner recognizes feelings of benevolence, selflessness, as, actually, self-interested, which is broadly the truth - people act good to feel good about themselves.
Every choice is between preferable options, or among undesirable options.
The only exceptions are moral dilemmas, where the choice is often selfishness versus potential common good; heroism. Say, you save a dog/person from icy waters or leave it be. Both are positive options in this common sophistry.
>you don't feel cold
>you don't risk yourself for an unknown being
>or you feel heroic
>or you die trying (negative?)

The spook is an idiot that can't think further than spooks. When you run away of all spook, you become spook'd by spooks themselves.

>His only friends were a group of socialists.
And apparently King Socialist Karl Marx felt that Stirner's philosophy was so abhorrent, he dedicated hundreds of pages to a vicious attack on not only Stirner's philosophy, but Stirner himself in The German Ideology. Try harder to inject a flawed set of contexts to justify your flimsy opinion about Stirner. Have you ever considered that he was interested in figuring out how things worked instead of making an autistic claim that The Ego and its Own was a grab at power or something? People can write as observers you know.

I didn't even endorse the Rand-esque claim that you're implying. Neither was the poster ahead of you. If you have to reduce your opponents to the most ridiculous caricature that you can think of in order to defend your rosy picture of Stirner, then you probably should reconsider your position. Take your meds and come back when you're ready to argue like an adult.

Marx disagreed with him, so what? That does not disprove that user's point: Stirner always associated only with socialist and anarchist intellectuals. These were his only friends, and the only peoples whose ideas he cared about: to this context he associated virtually every intellectual pursuit in his life (including his only business, that damn milk store).
At the very best one can say that these ideologies were perfectly compatible with his self-interest.

By the way that user is right, I don't get why you guys are mobbing him. Stirner goes at great lenght about how inherently different every individual is, and he not even once tries to formulate some sort of all-encompassing law about how one should act, rather he just points out the nature of the ideas we refer to when taking action. This does not mean that fromnow on you will have to be a power-hungry psycho, since you may simply not really care about material possessions or power. In fact I'd say that om those fundamental parts of life in which morality is required for them to function, given perfect freedom most people would still behave in a friendly manner as long as life is tolerable.

tl;dr: I may egoistically want to better the world, not for my own glory, only for this world's sake

>: Stirner always associated only with socialist and anarchist intellectuals. These were his only friends, and the only peoples whose ideas he cared about: to this context he associated virtually every intellectual pursuit in his life (including his only business, that damn milk store).
Those were the only intellectuals around the Young Hegelians. Engels recalls Stirner as some sort of arch-contrarian. He definitely was sympathetic to, but did not fit the mold of, socialism. He was certainly some form of anarchist, but those come in all shapes and forms. Marx, and to a lesser extent Engels, obviously felt that Stirner and his ideas were a threat to their project of historical materialism and socialist revolution.

> Stirner goes at great lenght about how inherently different every individual is, and he not even once tries to formulate some sort of all-encompassing law about how one should act, rather he just points out the nature of the ideas we refer to when taking action
Isn't that what the non-aggressive guy was saying? The other person was basically attributing some weird form of humanistic intent to Stirner's work to justify it being a pamphlet for socialism when in reality Stirner was a harsh critic of his humanist colleagues, including most famously Bauer.

Oh, I'm just passing by with a response to all your fucking dumb ass arguments.
also
>judging writer/philosopher by his life
do you guys pretend that Kafka did not exist?

"Stirner died in 1856 in Berlin from an infected insect bite"

>Stirner is the very involuntary egoist he derides.
Wrong.

the interpretations here are horrible

how can so many people not understand stirner? it's not particularly complicated. motivations that come from outside of yourself are spooks. take family for an example. liking your dad and hanging out with him doesn't make you spooked. hanging out with your dad BECAUSE he is part of your family even though you hate him means you've been spooked by the idea of ‘family’, which comes from outside yourself. this isn't much more than basic criticism - he's pointing to society’s sources of values that tell you to do things and saying, “they’re all the same, all outside yourself, all as valid as 'commands' from a christian god.” what makes stirner unique is his solution. most critics dismiss one particular source of values and then replace it with something else that's also outside themselves; think of someone disparaging christian values, but replacing them with the just-as-spooky values of liberal humanism. stirner says the way to get back of spooks once and for all is to take motivation from only one place, from inside yourself: from the ego. nietzsche has a great description of how someone can start to live like this in thus spoke zarathustra when he describes the camel, lion and child.

ego shouldve been translated as the 'unique,' which is more like the lacanian subject than the ego. if you think that unspooking yourself means acting in accordance with your naive interpretation of the ego, which just wants bitches, hoes and money, then you've just internalized a spook that you think is your own.

this is NOT a materialist philosophy. anyone using it to say muh capitalism or muh communism has misunderstood from the get-go

>involuntary
There was nothing involuntary about his egoism. also there is nothing mutually exclusive about those 2 statements and Stirner basically said that you should struggle to get as much as you can and only someone stronger (like the state) can force you to do otherwise communism is nothing but big state telling you how to live

How is respecting property rights not in your self interest? would not you want your own property rights respected?

Defending your property is in your interest. Respecting the property right spook is only in your interest if you have a lot of stuff and want to meme a police force into protecting you.

Its like morality. its "good" but it is also in most cases convenient, playing along with the meme rules often removes a lot of stress and headaches while often netting you more gain then if you would have gotten by breaking the rules (if you play things right. which should not be hard if you truly are a person who is focused on their self interest and does not get sidetracked by emotion )

the implication that all "outside motivations" come from society is false. people can driven by ideas into engaging in all sorts of behaviors, sacrificing their spontaneous emotional sense of what they want to do at the altar of "i should do this". it seems that every short term sacrifice made for the sake of long term gain is a spook, because you're motivating yourself by cold, abstract reasoning, yes/no?

basically, yes, you have struck on an issue that philosophies like the tao have—you cannot live as an animal. that is why nietzsche talks about 'the dice roll' in zarathustra: you sometimes need to play a 'game' to have rules within which you can be free. nietzsche's will to power, heidegger's tradition, camus' absurdism; these are all games—unique and individual ontologies chosen to free by binding.

you should read stirner to understand what he's saying and the problems of how to live that he is posing. then nietzsche, lacan and deleuze

Then realize you have to go back to Hegel, then Plato

yeah, and throw in husserl too then plato again

Just read the fucking book you autists. I'll even put the relevant sections in meme text.

> “All belongs to all!” This proposition springs from the same unsubstantial theory. To each belongs only what he is competent for. If I say, The world belongs to me, properly 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, through weakness, lets be taken from him; one is not worthy of it because one is not capable of it.

> They raise a mighty uproar over the “wrong of a 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 competent and incompetent? Wherein, pray, 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 alms, those alms that have even their name from mercy (eleemosyne)? Have not the rich been “merciful” at all times? Are they not to this day “tender-hearted,” as poor-taxes, hospitals, foundations of all sorts, etc., prove?

> 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 a fool 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 thaler daily, are rich above thousands who live on four groschen. Is it for your interest to share with the thousands, or is it not rather for theirs?

> ...

> If we assume that, as order belongs to the essence of the State, so subordination too is founded in its nature, then we see that the subordinates, or those who have received preferment, disproportionately overcharge and overreach those who are put in the lower ranks. But the latter take heart (first from the Socialist standpoint, but certainly with egoistic consciousness later, of which we will therefore at once give their speech some coloring) for the question, By what then is your property secure, you creatures of preferment? — and give themselves the answer, By our refraining from interference! And so by our protection! And what do you give us for it? Kicks and disdain you give to the “common people”; police supervision, and a catechism with the chief sentence “Respect what is not yours, what belongs to others! respect others, and especially your superiors!”

> But we reply, “If you want our respect, buy it for a price agreeable to us. We will leave you your property, if you give a due equivalent for this leaving.” Really, what equivalent does the general in time of peace give for the many thousands of his yearly income.? — another for the sheer hundred-thousands and millions yearly? What equivalent do you give for our chewing potatoes and looking calmly on while you swallow oysters? Only buy the oysters of us as dear as we have to buy the potatoes of you, then you may go on eating them. Or do you suppose the oysters do not belong to us as much as to you? You will make an outcry over violence if we reach out our hands and help consume them, and you are right. Without violence we do not get them, as you no less have them by doing violence to us.

> But take the oysters and have done with it, and let us consider our nearer property, labor; for the other is only possession. We distress ourselves twelve hours in the sweat of our face, and you offer us a few groschen for it. Then take the like for your labor too. Are you not willing? You fancy that our labor is richly repaid with that wage, while yours on the other hands is worth a wage of many thousands. But, if you did not rate yours so high, and gave us a better chance to realize value from ours, then we might well, if the case demanded it, bring to pass still more important things than you do for the many thousand thalers; and, if you got only such wages as we, you would soon grow more industrious in order to receive more. But, if you render any service that seems to us worth ten and a hundred times more than our own labor, why, then you shall get a hundred times more for it too; we, on the other hand, think also to produce for you things for which you will requite us more highly than with the ordinary day’s wages. We shall be willing to get along with each other all right, if only we have first agreed on this — that neither any longer needs to — present anything to the other. Then we may perhaps actually go so far as to pay even the cripples and sick and old an appropriate price for not parting from us by hunger and want; for, if we want them to live, it is fitting also that we — purchase the fulfillment of our will. I say “purchase,” and therefore do not mean a wretched “alms.” For their life is the property even of those who cannot work; if we (no matter for what reason) want them not to withdraw this life from us, we can mean to bring this to pass only by purchase; nay, we shall perhaps (maybe because we like to have friendly faces about us) even want a life of comfort for them.

> In short, we want nothing presented by you, but neither will we present you with anything. For centuries we have handed alms to you from goodhearted — stupidity, have doled out the mite of the poor and given to the masters the things that are — not the masters’; now just open your wallet, for henceforth our ware rises in price quite enormously. We do not want to take from you anything, anything at all, only you are to pay better for what you want to have. What then have you? “I have an estate of a thousand acres.” And I am your plowman, and will henceforth attend to your fields only for one thaler a day wages. “Then I’ll take another.” You won’t find any, for we plowmen are no longer doing otherwise, and, if one puts in an appearance who takes less, then let him beware of us. There is the housemaid, she too is now demanding as much, and you will no longer find one below this price. “Why, then it is all over with me.” Not so fast! You will doubtless take in as much as we; and, if it should not be so, we will take off so much that you shall have wherewith to live like us. “But I am accustomed to live better.” We have nothing against that, but it is not our look-out; if you can clear more, go ahead. Are we to hire out under rates, that you may have a good living? The rich man always puts off the poor with the words, “What does your want concern me? See to it how you make your way through the world; that is your affair, not mine.” Well, let us let it be our affair, then, and let us not let the means that we have to realize value from ourselves be pilfered from us by the rich. “But you uncultured people really do not need so much.” Well, we are taking somewhat more in order that for it we may procure the culture that we perhaps need. “But, if you thus bring down the rich, who is then to support the arts and sciences hereafter?” Oh, well, we must make it up by numbers; we club together, that gives a nice little sum — besides, you rich men now buy only the most tasteless books and the most lamentable Madonnas or a pair of lively dancer’s legs. “O ill-starred equality!” No, my good old sir, nothing of equality. We only want to count for what we are worth, and, if you are worth more, you shall count for more right along. We only want to be worth our price, and think to show ourselves worth the price that you will pay.

i don't understand what you mean by free by binding. is "rules" referring to actual rules of society used to make people feel safe on the streets, or is it saying that when you commit yourself to an ontological framework and language you limit yourself to a dogmatic way of thinking but also you now have a way to categorize all the information you collect, or is it saying that when you have too many options available it's too hard to pick and having rules imposed on yourself alleviates you from the burden

Stirner quit his cozy job and incurred ridicule to publish the work. Something you, unsurprisingly, ignore. The book was, in that sense, against his material self-interest. You can conjecture he wrote it as an observer as I stated - as conjecture, which I stated was conjecture - it was an attempt to elevate the awareness of people. What does he benefit from either except a feeling that he's performed a good, heroic, necessary deed?

>Isn't that what the non-aggressive guy was saying?
No. What's been said and refuted over and over is idiots who think Stirner himself fantasized a Rand-style capitalist self-interest. Everything points to Stirner being completely non-materialistic.

Learn some reading comprehension, retard.

Don't join threads when you have nothing to say and you don't understand what's being said, you worthless piece of shit.

false.
I act "good" because I act and occasionally the actions fall into your category of good.
My benevolence and selflessness are merely your assumptions about my behavior.
I will act in a way that hurts myself because I choose to act rather than not.

WTF, I literally mentioned the fact that Stirner received vicious criticism from his peers in the beginning of that very post you utter mongoloid. I also explicitly disavowed the Randian interpretation and pointed out that your former interlocuter did not resort to that interpretation either. Fuck you, you stupid, delusional, and belligerent asshole for killing another discussion.

I get real damn sick of passive aggressive disingenuous little twerps like you, you know that, kiddo? Real damn sick.

You or some other moron was banging the drum Stirner wanted the disintegration of the current power structure, but imagined an Egoist as pursuing his own self-interest in re-constituting it with him at the top - essentially projecting school boy power fantasies onto Stirner. Most retarded shit I ever seen.

It's that which I've criticised throughout the thread over and over again. More so than what I've said, to be honest, what you appear to dislike is that I'm mean. Fuck off back to r*ddit, kid. Seriously.

And you ought to be grateful I trample on you dipshits with my jackboot. Keeps you mongoloids in your fucking place. Maybe next time you won't be so quick to jump in on a subject you know nothing about, faggot.

>deride power structures and the worshiping of authority
>someone else thinks that this means that a system based on power structure and authority would be best for you
>yfw exceptionalism has made everyone fucking spooked

>nothing but ad hominem after ad hominem after being exposed for extremely poor argumentation practices
heh... looks like you got spooked,,, nothing personel, kid

>Stirner
>should
READ
THE FUCKING
BOOK

>crying about ad hominems
Are you a 14 year old high school kid on IRC in 2009 talking about how great Atheism is? Kys.

>me, an intellectual

>still thinks insults are interchangeable with logic and evidence
brainlet alert, btw still not an argument

*tips fedora*

*posts stale reddit meme*

You have nothing to say but you want the last word. Here, kid - go ahead, take it. I BTFO you and everyone so badly in this thread I don't even need it. It's yours - honestly. Go on, take it.

Not that user but

>He tried to establish a co-operative milk shop.

Not true it was a distribution warehouse designed to end the chaotic practice of farmers personally delivering it to city customers. It was closer to a primitive supermarket than to a milkshop.

He went into this business with only one other investor and did so based on his readings of Adam Smith - whose works were first translated to German by Stirner and were the standard reference work for over a century.

Hardly a co-op

>What Stirner would've done if he espoused the beliefs you and others ascribe to him is not write the Ego and Its Own. Write something promoting the prevalent power of the day, glorifying it, suck up to established authority, hope they'll give him a better job, more pay

Why dont we ask Stirner

>Let us choose another convenient example. I see how men are fretted in dark superstition by a swarm of ghosts. If to the extent of my powers I let a bit of daylight fall in on the nocturnal spookery, is it perchance because love to you inspires this in me? Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me.

The man wrote philosophy for personal satisfaction not money.

Well he is my property so of course he wrote it for me.

I think stirner's life reflects his philosophy.
>judging philosopher by his life
if you can't practice what you preach then you are a spook

>He wrote
he wrote it to get minted. people who writer books for themselves never publish and those who publish never give away the key to success

What is it like to suck the cock of IDEALOGY?

Acting in accordance with one's self-interest would necessarily lead one to oppose "the capitalist exploitation of the working class". No one lives in a vacuum.

Fuck I can't spell.

not if you are the capitalist exploiting the working class. The face of the working class has changed a lot due to technology

Stirner never talks about capitalism, let alone calling it "wrong". Fuck off.

this. fucking marx himself was agnostic

You've lost just face it

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. This redditor's idea of BTFOing people includes deliberately misreading Stirner, deliberately misinterpreting his interlocutors, and screaming like an incoherent maniac when everybody proves him wrong. What can you say? Logic is a spook!

I keep trying to press the left button, but nothing is happening.

The unspooked reasoning of
>Veeky Forums posts, probably made by namefags, on /pol/

Veeky Forums really has drowned in the flood of illiterate children and newfags

i think the initial meming of stirner got a lot of people to read him, i hope these dumb faggots dont keep people from doing so now

Get rid of the second button and add this on to the one button "thus, the working class should seize the means of production, as it is within their self interest to do so."

Give up man, they're spooked beyond saving.

>who apparently can't think beyond the assumption that life is fundamentally about the accumulation of capital and power?

Ur implying marxists want the very thing their fighting against, and on top of that, don't want to be happy. Hm.

>You: no I mean marxists think the world is fundamentally about the accumulation of capital and power user

There you are right. That is what Marxist believe. And they are right in believing it because that's how success and livelihood are determined in a society.

Now if your Stirner, alone with no one to take responsibility for, then yes you can jerk off and say whatever u want. But when your Marx, and have seven kids and a wife that you love, and you want to provide for your family, the currents of wealth and property start to matter, and add to that you have a bent for philosophy, well then you get something worth talking about

NO!!!!!

1. "not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.”

Ok max.

2. And now if someone — we leave it open whether such a one can be shown to exist — doesn’t find any “human” interest in human beings, if he doesn’t know how to appreciate them as human beings, wouldn’t he be a poorer egoist with regard to this interest rather than being, as the enemies of egoism claim, a model of egoism?

Wait, there is now a hierarchy of egotists? There are rich and poor egoists? Hm. And who decides whose the richer and whose the poorer? Sounds like a class struggle max

>take family for an example. liking your dad and hanging out with him doesn't make you spooked. hanging out with your dad BECAUSE he is part of your family even though you hate him

>Now what would an egoist do once he realizes this union can be hoodwinked by him and controlled by him?
You have no idea what an union of egoists fundementally is retard.

>Now if your Stirner, alone with no one to take responsibility for, then yes you can jerk off and say whatever u want. But when your Marx, and have seven kids and a wife that you love, and you want to provide for your family, the currents of wealth and property start to matter, and add to that you have a bent for philosophy, well then you get something worth talking about
Stirner had an ailing mother to take care of you dumbass.

Daily reminder that Stirner isnt a capitalist.
Stirner want all forms of competition not only economic competition that is allowed within capitalism but all forms. If Stirner would be a capitalist then he would scam, threating, extort, destroy, exploit and disregard all value of any voluntary contract as a spook. Having someone in capitalism with Stirner his ideas will be self destructive to capitalism itself wich depend on spooks like property rights to function.

READ THE FUCKING BOOK.
What does the commonalty mean by inveighing against every personal order, i.e. every order not founded on the “cause,” on “reason”? It is simply fighting in the interest of the “cause”. against the dominion of “persons”!
(Its wrong and inmoral to have compition between persons, its inrational and inmoral. Thats why the state/nap exist.)

But the mind’s cause is the rational, good, lawful, etc.; that is the “good cause.” The commonalty wants an impersonal ruler.
(the human nature that ancaps and right liberals beleave in based on John Locke)
(Extra note: Stirner his Individual is the Subjective Individual not the Rational Individual like that of Liberalism)

Furthermore, if the principle is this, that only the cause is to rule man — to wit, the cause of morality, the cause of legality, etc., then no personal balking of one by the other may be authorized either; free competition must exist.

>>>>Only through the thing can one balk another , not as a person.Henceforth only one lordship, the lordship of the State, is admitted;

dude, thats what you took from stirner? cuckc

This whole thing boils down to the OP, which is someone misconstruing Stirner as "the very involuntary egoist he derides."

Stirner's egoism is not deontic. It does not obligate one to act in one's self-interest -- or to act in any way at all. It is anti-deontic, and that is the whole point. End of story. The rest is up to what the individual wants, and clearly Stirner did not want to maximize his material self-interest.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dr-bones-the-stirner-wasn-t-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet

the intro to stirners critics is great. i remembered it wrong and thought it had actually been written by landstreicher, so was super excited for new translation, but im not really digging it; way less fun

Stirner is the perfect Veeky Forums philosopher. Like at most 2 or 3 threads on here are ever worth reading or contributing to, but with Stirner threads you at least always get a good laugh.

>dr bones

yeah not trusting a literal spook on this subject desu