Might means right?

[Ovi]

There are a few egoists on this forum and I thought about reading something about Stirner, a so called anarchist, and this struck me. Wtf? Since when is might means right left wing?

[IcarusAngel]

"Might makes right" is about this much better *holds thumb and index finger about a 12th of an inch apart* than the idea of free-market capitalism where people get land by supposedly "mixing their labor with unappropriated land." At least theoretically a democracy could take hold in might makes right, whereas a dictatorship is always assumed in capitalism (dictatorship of property owners). Capitalism is tyranny of the minority. Might makes right is another form of tyranny.

[Ovi]

The strange part is that Max Stirner so the employer-employee relationship as being exploitative. How do these 2 things work together?

[Left-Reasoning]

The idea that "might makes right" is a conflation of morality and reality. The doctrine that "might makes right" is no different then from the doctrine that there is no right.

[whore]

mights make right is how states operate. they rule, because if you object, they force you to obey or suffer.

mights make right is in no way an anarchist concept. anyone who has claimed that they had the right to rule over others if they were stronger, weren't/aren't real anarchists. moreover, stirner never claimed to be an anarchist.

that is not to say that stirner didn't have a lot of very interesting ideas that have influenced anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism), including emma goldman and other communists (and marxists including marx...).

Egoist anarchists argue that there are no rational grounds for any person to recognise any authority above their own reason or to place any goal before their own happiness.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism#cite_note-long-5) Hence they reject morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality), concluding that no one has any reason to accept any principles of conduct, except insofar as accepting those principles is strategically effective in promoting one’s own interests. The consistent anarchist, they argue, should accept no unchosen constraints, moral or political, on their own sovereign will.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism#cite_note-long-5) Even murder is permissible "if it is right for me."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism#cite_note-6)I would reject that last sentence as being a part of anarchism, because anarchists should treat individuals as ends in themselves, rather than means. (sure, a bit of kant.)

[Drace]

Egoist anarchists argue that there are no rational grounds for any person to recognise any authority above their own reason or to place any goal before their own happiness.[6] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism#cite_note-long-5) Hence they reject morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality), concluding that no one has any reason to accept any principles of conduct, except insofar as accepting those principles is strategically effective in promoting one’s own interests. The consistent anarchist, they argue, should accept no unchosen constraints, moral or political, on their own sovereign will.[6] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism#cite_note-long-5) Even murder is permissible "if it is right for me."[7] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism#cite_note-6)Finding morality flawed is more of a nihilist and thus a philosophical concept. Though even nihilists don't necessarily advocate the abolition of morals. I find it rather that morals enable society to act in a civilized manner and allow humanity to cooperate in such a way that the relationship benefits everyone.
If both beings are subject to morals, murder, then is not permissible since it is not beneficial to either party. One becomes a a victim of death and the other becomes subject to guilt.
Though morals are also effective in preventing such crime.

Justifying murder as "if its right for me" has no relevance to the anarchist principles.

[Ovi]

The idea that "might makes right" is a conflation of morality and reality. The doctrine that "might makes right" is no different then from the doctrine that there is no right.
As whore already said, if might makes right, then there's nothing wrong with the state. How is this anarchistic?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

There are a few egoists on this forum and I thought about reading something about Stirner, a so called anarchist, and this struck me. Wtf? Since when is might means right left wing?

A lot of people are amoralists or moral relativists. Then they simply "choose" to live their live in an egotistical fashion. I used to be an egoist, but I was completely mistaken on what that belief "means."

Egoism entails that if you have the opportunity to steal from children, you should. It doesn't say "don't do it if you feel bad about such things." That is Emotivism, an entirely different theory that has moral components.

Egoism also assumes your identity is continuous through time, which is difficult to support. And they also have to justify why other people are don't matter. It's not a very credible theory, philosophically speaking. It's more appropriate to consider it a lifestyle.