If I was an egoist, how would I benefit from despooking other people? If there's nothing morally wrong with it...

If I was an egoist, how would I benefit from despooking other people? If there's nothing morally wrong with it, why not lord over a mass of spooked property and bleed them dry? Why would I even think of talking about egoism and accidentally lowering the number of people I can exploit unless I was only an edgy teenager who just discovered nihilism?

because you don't have to deal with their spooky shit like this post
missing the point
Just because they are spooked does not mean you have more power than they do. Pretty spooky.
U-N-I-O-N–O-F–E-G-O-I-S-T-S. You are stronger with a team, your team is stronger when it is less spooked. There, done.

I don't know, would you?
Why the fuck are you asking us a question about your own motives.
Wow, it's like you never read Stirner.

But I can easily get a bunch of spooked people to do whatever I want and they'll let me keep all the profit. Face it, the eebil rich man you all complain about is just Stirner's ideas taken to their logical conclusion.

Not really because as your OP image demonstrates, if everyone thinks that way consistently it tends to backfire. Rich people get away with being dicks because capitalism protects them, egoism for the majority of people is a different story, because egoism will draw us together as a collective to fuck the guy in the ass who keeps fucking with us.

Exactly. And if endless backstabbing and lying is the logical conclusion of your philosophy
, then it simply can't work in the real world.
And why would a consistent egoist want a majority of of people to be despooked when he could just maneuver his way into power and then start exploiting people too?



Try again.

no it isn't because it isn't in my interest to be a backstabbing liar because I like stable and sustainable relationships

I have many good, productive relationships in which neither party (as far as I am aware, obviously) is a backstabbing liar, but y'know, I tend to interact with people I trust

My point still stands. An egoist has nothing to gain from being surrounded with other enlightened, free minded individuals when he can easily lord over a huge mob of dumb cattle.

no, he can't, because that isn't how power works

But isn't friendship a spook?

Why does every non Egoist fixate on dominating the world and enslaving everyone.

While suggesting they WOULD if they dropped their spooks? Really makes me thonk.

Non egoists are truly the most cruel and uncaring people.

Everyone is already spooked, and this hasn't happened.

Not really, since your point was about capitalist. Your shifting your position.

not killing*

Are you this much of a fucking monster you can't understand why people enjoy friendship and don't enjoy seeing slaves?

Gee, it's like you didn't read Stirner or something.

My point that a logically consistent egoist would actively work to halt the spread of individualist theory while practicing it himself.

Damn near everything else seems to get called a spook, so why not friendship too?

Unless he requires other egoists to fend off herd of bloodthirsty maniacs who drank their own kool-aid and require heavyhanded despooking to avoid descent into daesh-style middle ages.

Read Stirner.

stirner was an idiot but you're not extremely bright yourself

tell me the spook. Read a fucking book. The Unique and His Property preferably

Read Camus in addition to Stirner.

How are you going to sieze your egotiscial means without cooperating with other egotists against egoists who hold means?
Hold on, read Stirner first.

Tell me why someone has to be fully despooked for you to get along with them. Tell me what reason other than morality (AKA spook central) there is to want everyone to play by the same rules.

And that point was made using capitalist, which as I just showed you, was inconsistent with what Stirner was advocating. So yes, you pivoted. The fact that we live in a world where egoist practice individualist theory in isolated pockets, and are still subjected to spooks, is evidence to the contrary. That aside, there's going to be variation among egoist because of their own psychological make up. Sociopaths who don't value others are going to be sociopaths regardless of whether they are spooked or not.
Further proving you don't even know what a spook is and you're out of your depth.

I'd rather live in a society where we all agree that killing or raping each other willy nilly is a stupid idea and have laws against that. The only different between me and someone else is I don't attach some sacred belief onto it and call it a "moral". Saying that "murder is wrong because its immoral" is an arbitrary statement. Saying "murder should not be allowed in society because I don't want me or my loved ones to be murdered, and I'm willing to forgo my freedom to do so in exchange for that security" isn't.

The point of contention is with absolute egoism, not Stirner's arbitrary distinction regarding his worldview of 'oneness'. The capitalist rejects morality and acts in his own self-interest by dominating the inferiors. Either compete or die.