SIDNEY E PARKER POST POST LEFTIST CONSCIOUS EGOFASCIST: i own myself

How do you avoid becoming dominated yourself?

By, not out of a romanticization or enslavement to some fixed point of means-of-domination-monopoly, but rather out of a consciously egoist whim to, maximizing my means to domination and minimizing others, provided this does not become a sacred-domination goal, an end for it's own sake, and is rather just a utility for my own pleasure and exists as a tool for my sake, not me for it's sake.

So; might makes right?

Yes. I believe Sidney Parker even owned a copy of the book of the same name, and quoted at one point Redbeard.

sorry, "might is right", not makes.

Thanks. You're right

Thought so. What's your position on private property?

its a spook

That's obvious, but in order to dominate, out your own egotistical desire, do you not need it?

OWNERSHIP exists, "private property" in its usual definition does not. ownership is what you're actually physically capable of appropriating for your own use- say you have means of production x, which, at the command of those who can interact with it in the physical world, preforms function y or produces y good or commodity or whatever. if it is at your discretion to produce '"y, and you can exhibit and maintain this state of arbriter-of-y-production, you have control over of x'', and you own it. private property, derived from some silly concept like homesteading the land first or having something written on a paper, is a spook, as we agree. yes, i would want to own things, but not tantamount or above my ego. it is my ego that uses the ownership-of-things for itself, not vice versa etc etc u get the gist

No, his whole book is the separation from fixed morality; not affixing a new one. He never even assumes reciprocity, but assumes that there will at least be other "conscious egoists.'
The Union of Egoists paragraph in context is just an idea of possible mutual unions that "dissolve" the state. Stirner just makes the assumption that there are people who will not respect the State all in all, and will subvert it in how they please.
Yes yes, Stirner never said a word about that all being morally wrong. He does however from a personal point say that he could never torture (dominate) a man simply due to (what I'm guessing) the absolute mental destruction it would have on himself. Here's a quote that questions the whole dominancy schtick as well simply through personal emotion:

Another quote from Stirner's Critics on a "poorer" sort of egoist:
Stirner never denies dominant structures, but simply out of his disregard for the state and its power structure for himself would he not enjoy to find others to revel in likewise intercourse? Instead of lowering another person into a state of disregard, their full extents denied over your narrow egoism; would it not be a more rewarding intercourse to free them from their bonds to see them come to fruition?

i situationally enjoy domination and liberation. i am not bound to either, and to suggest that one must fullfil a 'quota' of either (and that the speaker has some kind of, beyond the audience or any other egoist, "correct" idea of what to do with his egoism is one of the faults i have with stirner)

this is an incredibly strange extrapolation from the, granted, vague text of And It's Own. are you positing that stirner is not in advocation of an egoist society, but rather neutrally from a detached stance pondering the existence of one? this would make 99% of egoists, that i have seen, at least, incorrect about their egoism- including people who in any way preach egoism or spread it as a message in any capacity that escapes their own whims and becomes a fixed idea, call for egoist revolution, characterize themselves as anarcho egoists (again; in a way such that it becomes a fixed idea and not a whim of a conscious ego utilized for one's own pleasure but rather a goal), and label stirner a communist or-probably even more foolishly- a capitalist.

What do you mean by domination anyways?
Nobody should be bound, that is the whole point of the book as the end of fixed morality. But to enjoy the domination of others and actively participate (therefore perpetuate) dominant structures is itself a narrow idea of egoism. Your idea of egoism as dominancy included has no room for mutual intercourse whatsoever. Our intercourse as something mutual requires that there is no ulterior motive for dominancy (or a disregard for humans as unique developments but as objects to be trifled with). Dominancy is short-sighted due to its limitations on how it views people, as property. Of course, they are my property; but they are more than that. They hold a place in my heart, as people with their unique situations and unique feelings which I can find pleasure in their relation to me. When I look at someone I love, how could they arise in me a need to dominate? I want to experience what they are uninhibited, not through some enforced bond to me. Likewise for someone I hate, I still feel for them simply as people. They may strike in me the greatest of indignations, yet I will still feel for their unique situation as a unique human being.
The whole point of Egoism is to bring out a more materialist conception of the world, uninhibited by ideas that fix the development (key-point of the whole book, and why dominancy can not play a role) of the Unique. Egoism proposes modes of thought to propagate self-interest as the negation of alienating general community interest and builds off of self-interest through what is most close to the self: emotion. Do you really advocate the subjugation of millions of unique people just for your short-term personal gain and not feel a shred of emotion? What do you even want out of your dominancy anyways?
Egoism is presented as the negation of society, or the beginning of ownness. Every development involves a step away from what is regarded as true or sacred by society.
The stance is not exactly neutral, of course he advocates for the idea of people becoming thoroughly conscious of their egoism to perpetuate unique development. But he never sets up any standard for (ie fixates) this, nor ever implies what a conscious egoist should and shouldn't do to achieve this. But just gives simple suggestions on how to change the conditions to attain unique development free from the bonds of legality and morality.
Personally I think that all anarcho-egoists are lifestylists who shout spook at everything and have no interest in creating a "system" to allow for unique development, but are the equivalent of smashies who with little nuance, deny systems (ideology, morality, legality) all together; even with the irony that their dismantling of a system must be replaced with another system.
This is where I part ways with Stirnerites, they have no praxis. None whatsoever. Even as someone who came to leftist thought through Stirner, I have not seen one iota of decent praxis except for them all jacking off about personal insurrection, even going so far to make it the be all end all of praxis to deny social institutions all together as "spooked ideologues."

Holy shit, you're retarded, nowhere does Stirner say any of that. If you actually rad him you would know placing self-interest above your ownness is a spook and nowhere does he say you should follow your own self-interest, you will become a slave to yourself. Sage for possible bait and dumbass OP. Go back and Stirner again, and this time pay attention.

un-egoistic or oppressive relationships or dynamics of power. anything that is compulsory, and so not voluntary, or exploitative, and so not egalitarian.
thats why i disagree with the book. i see no reason why I should concern myself, that is, put above my own or enslave myself to, the business of others when i do not want to.
i should regard people however i want to given i use that regard as a tool to my will. i have as much room for mutual intercourse and voluntary, beneficial unions as i want there to be, but i see now reason why the anarchic tenant of "Dominating People Is Wrong" should be followed. i will dominate, i will participate, and i will express myself and be empowered to do whatever i want with no quota or regard that enslaves me, for i will choose my own regard and empathy on my own terms. why should i, not care, but be forced to care about humans or the mutual terms of a relationship? that seems like an appeal to the repricocity, the other egoists, over my self.
uh,,, yup.
me too! but i will not let these desires, which are mine and i own, get above me and enslave me. i would like to dominate in many situations as much as- or more, or less, or whatever- i would like to acknowledge humanity i would like to dominate.
this is increasingly a plain appeal to the "egoist morality" i am criticizing. egoism, yes, empowers you to not dominate, and for others to not dominate as well. my egoism empowers me to dominate, and your's- a recursive "i will to because i like to"- is the same logic that empowers my domination, and any other action i prefer.
i am aware of this, and this is what i criticize stirnerian egoism for. my ego is being placed below that Inexorable March of history, in that i exist to satisfy it. on the contrary, it exists to satisfy me, and where or if it does not i reject it.
exactly. i see no reason why it should be put above myself a concern that others become conscious egoists. if i employ satisfaction from it, sure, but not if i become a tool of it.
but he advocates it in the first place. the normative derived from this is that we should achieve this, and i shall place no goal to achieve above my own ego.

i'm not talking about following my self-interest or maximizing my material gains or profits or whatever. i could, if i wanted to, given I do not place it above my own free will- let it become a goal i am chasing or my intention rather than my action. you're misinterpreting my argument and being a dumbass about it, fuck off.

bumpé

Then don't? However you will always be subjected to power structures larger than yourself and your petty domination. I don't know why you would allow yourself to be, but if you're into that fixed development kind of stuff be my guest.

This is a lot of words to get angry and say very little in the way of refutation.
then i would like to dismantle those power structures, out of my own will. everything only exists in relation to me, and what it allows me to do and inhibits me from doing; if i dismantle the capitalist statist power structures of society, sure, their reign over me would be over, but what am empowered to do then? will i be able to carry out more physical actions, manifest my egoistic desires, than i was in the previous world? if i am still limited than there still exists, as far as i am concerned, "oppression" or limitation of my ego, and it is up to me- as far as i choose, given i feel like it, and so long as it does not become an end rather than a means- to further dismantle this power structure. if i do not want to, and the would rather live in the anego "utopia", or if i would rather live, for some reason, under dictatorship or capitalism or whatever, i am empowered to too- but i am similarly, again, empowered to dominate.
which is why i disagree with the book, dudie.
ok
what do you mean by this? forgive me if i'm misunderstanding your argument, but are you saying that dominancy is wrong because of the bad effect it has on me? is that the basis of your argument? because, if it is by that basis that norms are being established than anything else that has a bad effect on me must be prohibited, effectively outlawed. if the removal of one thing is justified because it will harm the practicer of the practice, than everything else must be consistent with this logic. who is the arbriter of this? you? who enforces this? if you don't mean the effect it has on me, but rather the victim, then so what? people have value because we (egoists) give them value, but we don't sanctify-or make sacred- this value. stirner recognized this, and yet without sacred fixed points of morality he is to assume that, by a conscious egoist, consciously-practiced love and morality would be practiced and go unquestioned (or, rather, it is of a "richer" egoist to practice these conscious virtues), as if we aren't unique and there remained some idealized conception of humanity and human nature as remaining (or being better by being) as a constant "loving" or "conscious-moral".
which is why i am no longer a stirnerian egoist boyo.
(1)

not necessarily: it is not a necessity for me to experience people "uninhibited" or "freed", for i am not bound to want to do or not do anything. if i actually do, ie my egoist whims with my philosophy in mind, is barely relevant to the discussion- it is what lead me to justify my actions, and any of the potential actions that justification allows, that matters.
why do i have to be consistent? is it an aspect of the material, physical world that is inescapable, that populations can only be entirely dominated given someone is being dominated or entirely uninhibited given no one is dominated? or is that your spook?
see above.
which is why i'm not a stirnerian egoist.
i dont, i'm not a stirnerian egoist- again, i disagree with stirner and agree with the likes of s.e. Parker and arthur desmond. that's not the correct use of "dark-enlightenment" at all, by the way. they're capitalist monarchists and some other weird stuff, not misanthropes (although you could make a separate argument for that lol)
if this isn't okay with me i am empowered by my egoism to stop it given it doesn't become a end rather than a means to my own egoistic whims. if i'm getting fucked over by the rich, as the left claim, or the government, as the right claims, or da joos, or diveristy, or the patriarchy, or fascism, or fractional reserve banking, or imperialism, or liberal cucks, or what ever than I, given it is an object of my desire and something of which my desire is contained in, an totally and completely empowered to try to stop!! i have never claimed that i'm against revolution- indeed, some sacred value of complacency is just as hated by me as the sacred value of revolution. revolution, and participation within capitalism, and all else is my tool.
i can have concern and empathy and what ever moral values, granted that i am conscious of my egoism.
why should I?
i'd call you spooked as fuck, so, that makes two of us flawed egoists.

Fuck you for bumping this.

bc it makes u throw a fit bump again

Stop with this nonsense
Just read Bakunin it's not that hard

by enslaving others you bind yourself to them and therefore checkmate yourself into wasting your life on other's maintenance. master is a slave of his own property and therefore fails at egoism.

Kill yourself, spookcuck. Sidney is also a faggot.

that would be sacrilegious domination, or sacred-domination. u r capable of forming this type of connection with any other thing you interact with, and just as with domination, you are capable of not.

you misunderstood my argument and now you're throwing a spergfit. your bad.

spooked