Stirner, Founder of Egoism

This morning I am looking at an Internet, 2023, article from StudySmarter on Max Stirner. In this article, they identify Stirner as the founder of egoism, and I do not know if that is so, but he certainly brought it to the fore. My concerns with Stirner are several: that his strong nominalism, his irrationalist epistemology and his subjective egoism are so radically individualistic, that there would be no external curbs on the individual—that is unacceptable;  that his brand of egoism does not give us the most radically free individual possible: subjective egoism and irrational, skeptical epistemology drive people, born wicked and foolish, to double down on group-living, true believing and willing enslavement to a ruling class and their interpelleated ideology (the opposite aim that Stirner  sought to bring about)—only the objective egoism of the logical anarchist-individuator supercitizen, great soul and living angel, leads to rearing the freest individual possible—only the moral individual is free—those serving Satan are not; Stirner’s utter rejection of constructive abstractions for us to serve and guide us deprives us of the rational categories of existence that tie us to self-growth, to morality, to loving and to God; his amorality will lead humans to nihilism, chaos, immorality and living in bondage to the Evil Spirits—though this was not his intent. These unintended consequences are horrific.

 

In the article Stirner is described as the founder of Egoism, a radical form of individualist anarchism. That seems right: “Individualist anarchism emphasizes the sovereignty and freedom of the individual above all else. It is an ideology that pushes the ideas of individual freedom of liberalism to the extreme. Individualist anarchism, unlike liberalism, argues that individual freedom can only occur in stateless societies. To protect the freedom of the individual, state control must be rejected. Once free from restrictions, individuals can then act rationally and cooperatively.”

 

My response: Mark Levin is wiser in his political philosophy than is Stirner. Mark would emphasize the sovereignty and freedom of the individual citizen, but not above all else. Each citizen should enjoy maximum freedom until it bumps up against the rights of others and the public good: he would still need to obey the laws and cooperate with other citizens under the umbrella of legal constitutional republicanism and order liberty.

 

We need anarchism but only as the anarchism of an individuators-anarchist in a free market, constitutional republican state. A stateless society wound end up lawless and anarchist, the nightmare Hobbes envisioned, so people would then cry for order and law, and a totalitarian state, with a ruling class and fossilized mass movement living with hierarchies and true-believing would b a society of suffering, and great state cruelty. To set up a stateless society will lead us to a totalitarian outcome. We will have some hierarchy and some state control, and Stirner’s extremism here would end up in the individual losing all of his freedom and rights, as a slave to a nightmarish federal Leviathan.

 

With restrictions few but firm, the individual may then act rationally and cooperate.

 

StudySmarter continues: “From the individualist anarchism perspective, if authority is imposed on an individual, they can’t make decisions based on reason or conscience nor can they fully explore their individuality. Stirner is an example of the radical individualist anarchist: his views on individualism are extreme, as they are not based on the notion that humans are naturally good or altruistic. In other words, Stirner knows individuals can do bad things but believes it is their right to do so.”

 

My response: Individuals need the freedom and power to make decisions based on conscience, reason or in ways compatible with their exploring their individuality, but sometimes the state has a need to curb behavior contradictory to its legitimate needs restricting its citizen, and this is a limited exception,

 

Note that the author posits that anarchist see human nature as good or altruistic, so people can handle all that freedom in a stateless society. Stirner is unusual in stating that people are good and evil, but if they do evil, as long as it is their self-interest, they can so act. That is unacceptable for me. We are to be moral, nor moral, for we are made by God to be moral creatures. If we were goodly born, then we would be self-interested, more than other-interested, but since we are born bad or altruistic (selfless and selfish), not self-interested (Self-centered and selfless in noble ways.), then we need the limited state to provide some legal guidance, accompanied by individuators-anarchist, virtuous and smart enough to handle ordered liberty without upsetting the neighbors.