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?