Would Max Stirner technically be considerd a libertarian?
If not, from a non religious perspective, are his views the only ones that can actually stand up to some moral / logical debate with a libertarian type perspective?
nope Max Stirner was an individual anarchist that was heavily influenced by anarcho-socialism.
I would say yes… individualist anarchism is definitely part of libertarianism (meaning the advocacy of freedom of body and thought, and/or the philosophical advocacy of free will).
You seem to know very little about Stirner, given that “The Ego and His Own” largely consisted of on an attack on secular humanism (which includes a short criticism of Proudhon) via a form of egoism produced by following Hegel’s phenomenology to the point of completely surpassing him, getting rid of the very concept of the “geist” and hence refusing to recognize any arbitrary concept (such as “humanity”, “the state”, “law” and even “truth” and “morality”) as being above his ego. Karl Marx denounced Stirner as a “petty burgeousie individualist”, and a negative public image Stirner was perpetuated by the Marxists because they saw him as a threat (since Marx was trying to be the one to surpass Hegel, and Stirner had actually surpassed Hegel in a much more consistant way than him that lead to completely different conclusions than Marx’s - Stirner’s phenomology surpasses Marxism and any form of humanism altogether; and furthermore Stirner appears to surpass the entire enlightenment project).
Also, your claim that Stirner was “heavily influence by anarcho-socialism” is laughable, especially given the historial period, which is roughly the 1840’s and 1850’s, when “anarcho-socialism” was practically still being developed more or less. Proudhon’s “What Is Property” was released only a handful of years before “The Ego and His Own”. But it’s also laughable for the brief description of his philosophy I provided above, which indicates that Stirner was a strong opponent of communism and all forms of collectivism as the inevitable consequence of his egoist phenomenology. Stirner was no commie. Stirner, as a broad anti-dogmatist that is much wider than a mere rejection of the concept of a god, criticized both the Marxists and the “new atheists” of only replacing the old god with a new one, via anthropromorphizing “the spirit” onto human things or “humanity” in the abstract, replacing the explicitly religious authority with secular and political authorities that serve the exact same function.
Later on, Stirner’s ideas were revived by the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker when he made his transition from a natural law approach to an egoist approach. This more formally introduced ideas of egoism into the anarchist movement, and Ayn Rand had read Stirner as well (although of course her version of egoism differs from his egoism in some significant ways, but nonetheless Stirner is influential on egoism in general and makes some basic points that Rand would have agreed with, only from a different epistemological framework). The associations with communists comes into play from the strange phenomenon, at least half a decade after Stirner’s death, of certain anarcho-communists (even Emma Goldman) actually drawing influence from Stirner from their own intepretation of him.
But to try to answer the OP’s question, it’s kind of hard to answer. In a sense, Stirner could be seen as a non-libertarian anarchist (the “non-libertarian” part being due to his anti-essentialist rejection of “morality” as a geist above his ego), since he technically does not recognize the authority of the state and sees it as inhrently being against his interests. The actual implications of Stirner’s ideas can be hard to figure out, as he’s been tagged with labels ranging from nihilism to solipsism to individualism to anarchism, and there are some followers of Stirner who explicitly renounce anarchism because of humanistic implications therin. Yet there are also certain groups of anarchists who are Stirnerites. It’s also hard to figure out what his concept of a “union of egoists” actually entails. So Stirner seems like someone to speculate about.
As a non expert on the man (I just came to know of him this week), off hand he does seem to require much more serious thought than is given to him. I would also think he would be of particular interest to libertarians. Considering the people he was around and associated with, and Marx’s “attack” (which at a breif first glance seems as almost nothing more than page after page pf name calling) on him. Maybe I am wrong but he seems to important a thinker to be just a footnote in Marxism or philosophy.
He also translated the Wealth of Nations and a work by Jean-Baptiste Say into German, I find that interesting. Does anyone know if he did a preface or anything in any of these translations?
Stirner was definitely anti-state but only included the state as part of a broad category of “spooks” people put above their ego that deserve to be below one’s ego or annihilated by one’s ego.
I’ll agree with BP on pretty much all he said and add that a great deal of anarcho-socialists, not all, seem to have very little understanding of Stirner despite supposedly Stirnerite. I’ll also add that one particular section of The Ego and His Own, is remarkably similar to the general theme of the Fountainhead, and specifically the part about “the creator” (I believe Stirner uses the same word) doing things egoistically that happen to benefit all of mankind. I think Rand (she was more nihilistic in her younger years) and Nietzsche were probably heavily influenced by Stirner; but in my view deviated from him in ways that make their philosophies ultimately quite inferior to Stirnerite egoism.
Anyways, I think Stirner would definitely think natural law is a bunch of nonsense-- and of course morality in general. Other than that there’s not much we could say about how compatible he is or isn’t with contemporary libertarians. I myself am something of a Stirnerite and still something of a libertarian, though due to Stirner’s influence I find the “libertarian” appellation less and less suitable for myself.
Also re: his translations of Say and Adam Smith-- I always found that interesting but never knew much more about it either. If someone else knows help me out.
I have been hooked on The Ego and It’s Own. I was never too much of a Randian, and in general have think Nietzsche has some interesting things to say, but I have always been somewhat lukewarm to him. Stirner however has blown me away, I feel this man should be much more widley known. I really can’t get the book out of my head, this is the most interested in someone else’s ideas I have been since I came across the Austrians about a year ago. I am reading the Ego and It’s Own a second time. It looks as if he wrote a few more thing based off his wikipedia page, but I can’t find them anywhere, does anyone have a link where I could read some more of his works?
While I’m not a Stirnite, I’m incredibly intrigued by Stirner’s “The Ego” as well. It’s very thought provoking.
“The Ego” was his only full book, but at The Molinari Institute website there are a few shorter workers linked I think. By the very least, I recall one called “On The Principle of our Education” on the education system and methods of education.
Likewise, I consider The Ego and His Own to be the most important book in my life despite it only crossing my path a month or so ago. It’s turned a many of my familiar ways of thinking upside down. Both intellectually stimulating in an abstract way (by rendering many abstract issues irrelevant), and incredibly relevant to my day to day existence-- it’s like when I first came across Rothbard and Nock and never thought about the state the same way except with regards to not just the state but virtually every idea I’ve ever pondered, and all the more so powerfully.
It does seem like Stirner should be more well known than he is; but then if you think about what sort of change in thinking is required by one who reads and fully comprehends him it’s easy to see why many people would rather forget about him than try to find some eigenheit.
I was preoccupied with Ego for a long time and still am to some extent. There is one very important short text Stirner wrote not too long after Ego in answer to critics of Ego called “Stirner’s Critics”. This is as essential to understanding Stirner’s thought as is The Ego and It’s Own. Even a few years after I first read Ego I would find myself reaching deeper and deeper comprehension of Stirner’s ideas, especially once I focused on a few key sections in Stirner’s Critics.
Yeah, I came across it in a search, haven’t read it yet. The very sad thing about it though is that it was written before Marx “criticized” (it was more like rambling and name calling) him. I would have loved to read a Stirner reply to Marx, but as history would have it, it is not to be. Interesting how Stirner translated a book of Adam Smith, and was criticized in a long work by Marx and yet there is no direct opinion we get to hear from Stirner on the two men.
I’ve never read Stirner’s “Ego”, but do you think the Rothbardian system and Stirner’s system could ever be combined? [:^)]
What do you mean? Can you elaborate please? I can say they both loved freedom, both were strong individualists, both saw the folly of socialism. Not to mention calling what Rothbard and Stirner were talking about “a system” seems a bit off key.
Sure. What I mean is if Stirner’s and Rothbard’s philosophies could be combined to develop a form of market anarchy. Is that possible or would it be a contradiction.
Not if you think property rights would naturally spring up in anarchy. I think, I am honestly not an expert on either (I have only been aquainted with Rothbard for 6 months and Stirner for 3). I’ll try to post a more comprehensive answer in a day or two.
Tucker was a Stirnerite, and his system forms a large part of Rothbardian market anarchism.
Has Rothbard ever commented on Stirner? Does Tucker have any articles on Stirner?
As far as I know, Rothbard only commented on Stirner in passing, and I don’t know where. Tucker did write about Stirner; in fact, if I remember correctly, he translated the first English edition of The Ego and Its Own. Don’t have any links at the moment.
Lol, I thought you meant Jeffery Tucker. It took me a second to think of Benjamin Tucker, that I knew. I did read one article where Rothbard did mention him in passing, it was an article about libertarianism (I think he called him a fanatic). Other than that though I haven’t seen anything. I don’t think I have read any Austrian view on him. I know Lefevre mentions him in his lecture about anarchy, but that is the best I could find when concerning the Austrians.