Isn't property a spook as well?

No thing necessarily has to be a spook but many things can be

Attached: Stirner.png (900x669, 352K)

No. Property is theft.

stirner was a proto-marxist and he understood that property is a spook

Of course it is

>Strong animals take from and eat weaker animals.
not always

Attached: Tarantula Xenesthis immanis keeps small frog Chiasmocleis ventrimaculata as a pet, to eat insects th (1024x670, 172K)

>tfw go around inner city cafes
>spit in my own coffee and tell the manager I saw the barista do it
>tfw I've gotten at least four chapotards fired
Only thing I miss about M*lbourne.

Daily reminder that Max Stirner was a literal cuck and his whole ideology was just made to justify it:
>That she did what she wished, and that Stirner let her do what she wished-that of course may have let her appear in the eyes of the marriage-slaves as detestable as it later did to her, but it can only make the two of them more likable to us. Every act of making up the mind for the other, for that matter, would not have fit at all into the nature of those involved, for whom "marriage" meant only a loose band that was thrown around them purely externally. And not on the "unfaithfulness" of the wife-how ridiculous!-did "this marriage perish," but simply and only under the pressure of the circumstances in which he and she unfortunately all too soon found themselves.
From "Max Stirner - His Life and His Works" By Mackay

Based.
>From "Max Stirner - His Life and His Works" By Mackay
Is this the most elaborate cope ever written?

Imagine being such an autist that the only example you can find is a symboitic relationship between a frog and a spider. Goes to show the weaklings who benefit from property rights and why they advocate for them. Meanwhile, many orders above in terms of natural hierarchy, these are both trampled upon by better animals to such an extent that they are non-existent. So yes, always. Such arrangements are done for mutual benefit of the bottom rung. This is why insectoids like you advocate for property rights, which are just a soft-form of equality that you don't even realize. Idiots, low IQ people, criminals, and otherwise degenerates, have no claim to their property and should be better allocated to better examples. There are too many people as is.

Attached: BUT MUH PROPERTY RIGHTS!.jpg (600x394, 84K)

me:
>whether property is a spook
>that would mean animals succumbed to a spook
>so either property is something more real than just abstract concepts invented for crowd control, or animals posses reason and were spooked (left unverbalized, because trivial implications)

you:
>hurr durr

i wouldnt be able to find analogies to penal laws in nature, so they must be a bigger spook than property, yet nobody would unironically want to abolish criminal justice.

those animals are spooked

Attached: 1563379771836.jpg (233x217, 9K)

pic related

Animals don't act according to an ideology, what is this discussion here?
And nothing is in itself a spook - people turn things into their spooks.

Attached: s.png (1194x320, 125K)

The lack of property is theft

it can be, why not? property exists because everyone is compelled to agree

If you're strong enough to defend it, it's yours. Honestly, stirner ideas aren't really hard to grasp: strip society of man made restrictions and do whatever you want or need to survive even if it means using man made notions of societal control. Call the cops if somebody is trying to take your shit if that benefits you. Take the cop's gun if you need it.

read stirner and it will blow your mind, its like he specifically addresses property or something

Apathy is death

Does Stirner distinguish between short term and long term gain when performing these little cost-benefit analyses that have been stripped of their spooks?

Because if he were, he would immediately see that almost all long-term gain is to be made by obeying the spooks, which were put into place in a more stripped-down and spookless past.

Attached: countersignal memes.png (680x448, 126K)

No because by propriety Dtirner mean stuff like "diamond is hard" or "fire is hot".

>Because if he were, he would immediately see that almost all long-term gain is to be made by obeying the spooks

that's why people go into politics instead of holding up gas stations

AHHAHAHA
This is the shittiest naturalistic fallacy I've seen in a while

LOL no. Do not ascribe human concepts to beasts. At best animals understand cause and effect. If you left a piece of rawhide in the middle of your floor and beat your dog whenever he got near it because it was your grandmothers rawhide passed down the family line for generations and you viewed it as "yours". The dog does not understand that you view it as your property, rather the dog understands that if he gets near it you will beat him. There is no higher thought process at work, the only thing that stops the dog from chewing that rawhide is a greater fear of a beating than any pleasure he might get out of chewing it. Lets say you left the house without giving the dog any food and you stayed away for a few days. How long do you think it would be until the pain of hunger overrode the fear of chewing the rawhide?

tl;dr Stirner is a hack who justifies greed by calling everything a spook except for his own spooks. He was basically the first sovereign citizen of his time.

>Do not ascribe human concepts to beasts.
i didnt. i'm saying this concept derives from natural motivations already present in beasts. it can be extended artificially through reason, more powerful foresight and memory, beyond comprehension of beasts like in your thought experiments, but the basic motivation is still shared by man and beast via evolutionary relationship.

Rights are a retarded meme that always comes down to be enforced by violence. The irony is squatters rights is literally based on the principle of people not being able to defend "their" land from invaders.

Property just means a thing that you add to your 'self'. You're spooked if you're unable to relinquish a thing. Has nothing to do with property rights, which is a legal development particular to European history.

Stirners philosophy sounds like Joe Rogan when he's off his rocker, surely I will be able to implement this worldview to my advantage.

You americans can't distinguish a private property and personal property.

Have you ever had a dog or are you just assuming the world corresponds to your lefty belief set? My dog gets pissed off when I touch her food, and won’t touch my food even if I leave her alone with it. Even if I put it on the floor actually, she’s really meticulous about permission. Maybe nature is the spook, eh?

For most people their ideologies will be influenced by the most personal intimate experiences, even when they try to be rational like stirner. People's mental processes are all just copes.