Laughing Man

I was looking for Boundaries of Order by Butler Shaffer

My email is 9nine9@gmail.com

Thanks!

Sorry, but perhaps to sum up.

Max Stirner is making a call to YOU, not some HIGHER GOOD or FIXED IDEA.  Or in other words, you are the higher good, not some restrictions on language or clever phrases delivered to prevent people to acomplish what they want.  In this way Max Stirner is an "anarchist".  His anarchy though is on a very personal level; not some great scheme for anarchy, just you.  He is the man who says "All things are nothing to me".

From what I gather about Max Stirner, he is essentially a believe in 'might makes right' considering what I read in his piece 'Ego and its own.' However, given that he is a believer of such, would he not need to concede that the state itself is a monopoly on right and therefore everything it does it has a right to do? So how can we call Stirner an anarchist if the very institution anarchist traditionally oppose has the right to do whatever its might can acquire?

Sorry to take so long to respond, I just noticed your question today. 

I think the phrase "might makes right" is a vast misrepresentation of Max Stirner.  Mr. Stirner is very careful in showing how language and "fixed ideas" can limit oneself to making such statements.  I think a better phrase would be "I am right, and what I do and what I like is correct."  Not as catchy for sure, also still not quite right (this is a very quick off the cuff of my head answer, if you wish I could try and get in more specific detail) in how to describe him. 

Also if you read Stirner, you will see nothing but criticism after criticism at the state from EVERY angle (and this is in 1843!).  The MOST important thing I can say, and I think one of the most important things about Stirner: He cares about the INDIVIDUAL, not the REVOLUTION (which he scoffs at time and time again).  Outside of his vague "Union of Egoist" notion, I think he would use ANARCHY as more of a personal choice rather than some mass movement.  If this is the case I would have to agree, anarchy as some sort of mass movement seems a bit silly to me.  It is about the INDIVIDUAL and his concerns, not some grand schemer and some higher good. 

This is a book that should be read by all, and I would think if one does not agree with everything, there is something to be learned by most libertarians, individualists, intellectuals, or anti-authoritarians.