Should society be responsible for the safety of its own citizens?

Observe how there is no argument.

Observations don't require arguments. You just breath in the death of shit philosopher's shit meme with your eye-lungs.

Stop staining the Groucho flag.

Observe the attempt to portray responding as a kind of admittance of defeat in order to have people not respond and feel like the winner of an internet argument.

I just saw a ghost. I don't have to prove this.

Your move.

Thanks for confirming you don't have an argument then.

Sit back. Sip coco. Observe Stirner's last breaths on leftypol.

Society is made up of people. Its not some anthropomorphic entity that just wills itself

spooky

observe this! *unzips dick*

I don't need to observe my property. *unspooks dick*

Observe the digits

Ah, truly this is the filosophy of Empirical Stirnerian Digital Anti-Ethicism

Observe the observation.
O, BS

Observe how there is still no argument and he's taken his flag off for maximum shitposting potential.

Observe how the Stirner posters had no arguments whatsoever. NOW THAT'S Spooky!

Observe the poster's belief in explanations originating from outside the self. Spooktacular!

did stirner believe in "self"?

Because that's the ultimate spook

Self as a fixed idea is one thing.
Self as a creative nothing is another.

Read Stirner

You literally said nothing just empty concepts.

self as in an entity separate from the body with an existence of it own.

I am not reading some loser philosophers nonsensical jargon

Then remain spooked and ignorant my property.

...

Did this stirner trashboy believe in the "self" ?

Yes or no

He believed in the creative nothing.
The self as a fixed idea is a spook.
But you probably aren't going to bother reading what that means, are you?

Because most philosophers talk in circles. Using big words and creating new concepts out of nowhere with no actual substance. Honestly if you can't summize his central philosophical concepts in one post that tells me a fucking lot. Oh boy I might give it read just for a good laugh

Why didn't he name his magnum opus that instead?

define creative nothing

That's all I'm getting from this conversation so far.

You can't define "nothing" so you have to be creative about it, work around it a little, so that's your job, i.e. nothing → creative job ← you

Simple enough for you, Mr. One Paragraph Philosophy Man?

Observe this user's brain on Stirnernism.

Is that member of society necessary for your own survival and prosperity, or in short, do you need them to achieve your goals?

talking in circles just like I said

spooky
WUT

Essentially, the creative nothing is more of a process of self-disillusionment that continually takes place till death. The self is just the totality of this process at the time when you proclaim it.

Observe.

What are we observing here?
The fact you don't have an argument again?

Observe the sub-par memes

Yesterday I proclaimed that self so hard it nearly prolapsed again.

Safety is a spook

Take the ultimate spook pill: spook is a spook

I know you cool kids are trying to be lean mean meme machines, but let me tell you a secret about spooks so you can at least shitpost about them better: anything can be a spook because it's ones' relation to the object that defines it

...

The only thing that matters is yourself.

The safety of others?

Who cares.

All that matters is my interests and needs.

Everything else is a spook.

Spook spook spooky - spooky - spooking? Spook spook spooky doobie spook:

Yes, it's in your own interest somebody does something about lead and asbestos.

No, but only because there's too many people as it is, and they're not dying off quick enough.

Nah