>you are not allowed to do this because it’s a spook
>you are not allowed to believe this because it’s a spook
>you are not allowed to practice this because it’s a spook
What a complete hypocrite. Following this guy seems to be the most limiting no-fun-allowed thing, since you are trapped in a prison of spooks in your very attempt at trying to avoid being spooked. I can’t believe anyone is retarded enough to listen to this hack, especially since he is just ripping off Marquis De Sade and just removing all the references to sexual degeneracy. Stirner’s philosophy will never lead to socialism ever, because as soon as a group of people can fuck other people up and get away with it they will. Bullies will always exist, plenty of animals will favour their own needs when they can but I don't see them practicing socialist equality. Any slight advantage will be used, and do you seriously think that people without a certain advantage will be able to stand against a group or groups of people who teamed up with each other because they have an advantage and can easily exploit others together? You know what you get when people follow Stirner? Mexican cartels, because ain’t nobody stopping Mexican cartels with the power of their ego. Just sell people crack and then boom, the ego wants crack more than they want the integrity of the society that would ban it, the ego wants to sell crack more than they want the integrity of the society that bans it. Also, prison is another example of why Stirner’s philosophy doesn’t lead to socialism

>>24471927 (OP)
every anti-dogmatist is a dogmatist of anti-dogma. every anti-moralist is a moralist of anti-morality. there is no "libertarian" stance, because every such action is motivated by the drive to subjugate, not liberate.

>>24472002
Shut the fuck up

>>24472009
NAH

>>24471927 (OP)
>you are not allowed to X because it's a spook
Absolute brainlet. He never once said anything like that. The correct line is "X is retarded because it's a spook." The rest of your post is delusional pissing and moaning against an opinion that no one is espousing except your imaginary enemy. Get a life numbnuts.

>>24472040
Isn’t that the pathetic way most Stirnerists live their lives though?

>he hasn't realised stirner is a spook

>>24471927 (OP)
85iq thread

>>24471927 (OP)
>Stirner’s philosophy will never lead to socialism ever
Yeah that's because he wasn't a socialist. "All things are my property" is not compatible with "we must abolish property" no matter how much modern e-leftists try to claim him. I don't even like him but you should be aware that Marx and Engels seethed endlessly about this guy because his whole philosophy was just pure individualistic self interest. He was basically Ayn Rand but male.

>>24472121
>stirnerists

>>24472002
>teehee, le equivocation
Kys, how's that for an imperative?

>>24472274
>Yeah that's because he wasn't a socialist.
Stirner's philosophy is explicitly socialist. He is just not an egalitarian in the same sense as his contemporaries. Stirner would value autonomy more so than equality (or at all for that matter). Look in to Mutualism (a theoretical rejection of capitialism which retains a free market) as well as post-leftism.

>"All things are my property" is not compatible with "we must abolish property"
Marx did not ever hope to abolish all property, only private property as it is defined legally (in contrast to personal property which the terms are often confused). Stirner did not disagree with this only that then personal property (in the abscence of the state) could only be a a matter of the individual to legitimize and not society at large.

>Marx and Engels seethed endlessly about this guy because his whole philosophy was just pure individualistic self interest.
Look in to his idea of a Union of Egoists.

>He was basically Ayn Rand but male.
Ayn Rand was a retard that (without having actually read a single relevant thinker) was convinced that she could both dismiss centuries worth of epistemology as well as the field of metaphysics as a whole while assuming an incredibly naieve realism as a form of critique to caricaturized points that were never being made in the first place, either in her own time or historically.

Stirner is closer to being Nietzsche minus the aristocratic posturing.

>>24471927 (OP)
>Stirner’s philosophy will never lead to socialism ever
Who the fuck ever suggested that?

>>24472411
Stirner did.