It just seems like he is though with all the property stuff and egoism.
No. I'm pretty sure every strand of anarchism or "anarchism" has tried to claim him.
No. His work pretty explicitly rejects their notion of property rights, which are utterly central to anarcho-capitalism.
>>962524
Not really, given that he wasn't a capitalist; he believed that property rights didn't exist and that the only "legitimate" authority was force, not an inherent ownership of property. Individualist anarchism definitely influenced anarcho-capitalism though.
Stirner's ideology on property is basically might makes right. This is obviously against the NAP.
>>962530
Its funny because Stirner himself would probably hate most forms of anarchism calling them too spooky.
>>962534
>>962535
So, he was a feudalist?
>>962556
Feudal lords may initially acquire their land through force but beyond that they derive their ownership from family lineage. Stirner would have no problem with serfs rising up and claiming the land for themselves if they could.
>>962524
Oh man. No. Property rights are fixed ideas which a self aware egoist has no need to respect. Without property rights, anarcho capitalism is basically nothing. Stirner's concept of property is far removed from the one found in classical liberalism, from which ancap is derived.
>>962556
No, he wouldn't have respected their property rights as sacred either, and would have found their notions of hierarchy absurd. His rejection of the then-new notions of liberalism wasn't a call to return to the old social orders.
Property rights under his system would be a simple matter of pragmatism, in which people band together to protect their property (perhaps even entrusting third parties to do so) out of simple practicality, rather than sacred values as anarcho-capitalists seem to treat them.
This is a thing people seem to miss about Stirner's philosophy: it doesn't actually change all that much, since a lot of what goes on can be justified egoistically quite easily. The main difference is that individuals would consider themselves the highest authority over their own lives.
>>962681
He was for people being self aware and knowing when shit was serving them or not or when they were serving some bullshit fixed idea which doesn't really benefit them very much. Trying to derive a political philosophy is not a great idea as it work against universalist ideas of how niggerz ought to be.
>>962681
Individual autonomy I would say. He figured people would be best off leading their own lives and trying to be as free as they feel they're capable of being or desire to be.
When he says everything is your property, he doesn't mean you own it, he means more that it really only matters as it relates to your own interests, so you should evaluate things strictly on how they relate to you.
His work never associates with a political ideal, and although he considered the state illegitimate, the association with anarchism came after his death.
>>962524
capitalism is a spook, property rights are a spook, anarchy is also a spook.
>>962524
It's called a union of egoist anarchists. That was his endgame. Fuck off with the anarcho-memes and read a book nigger.
>>964080
>That pic
MUH NAP
