30 - My Intercourse - part 7 - The Ego and His Own - Max Stirner

my intercourse part 7. If we assume that as order belongs to the essence of the state,

so subordination, who is founded in its nature, then we see that the subordinates, or those who

have received improvement, disproportionately overcharge and overreach, those who are put in

the lower ranks. But the latter take part, first from the socialists standpoint, but certainly

with egoistic consciousness later, of which we were therefore at once, give their speech some colouring.

For the question, by what then is your property secure, you creatures of the ferment,

and give themselves the answer by our reframing from interference. And so by our protection,

and what do you give us for it, kicks and disdain, you give to the common people,

holy supervision and a kichism with the chief sentence, respect what is not yours, what belongs to

others, respect others and especially your superiors. But we reply, if you want our respect,

buy it for a price agreeable to us. We will leave you your property, if you give a due

equivalent for this leaving. Really, what equivalent does the general in time of peace,

give for the many horizons of his yearly income, another for the sheer 100,000 and millions yearly.

What equivalent do you give for our chewing potatoes and looking colouring me on while you swallow

oysters, only by the oysters of us as dear as we have to buy the potatoes of you, then you may go

on eating them, or do you suppose that oysters do not belong to us as much as to you,

you will make an outcry over violence, if we reach out our hands and help consume them,

and you are right, without violence we do not get them, as you no less have them by doing

violence to us. But take the oysters and have done with it, and let us consider our nearer property,

Labour, for the other is only possession. We distress ourselves 12 hours in the sweat of our

face, and you offer us a few grotions for it. Then take the light for your Labour too.

Are you not willing? You fancy that our Labour is richly recade with that wage while yours

on the other hands is worth a wage of many thousands. But if you did not reach yours so high

and gave us a better chance to realise value from us, then we might as well, if the case demanded it,

bring to pass still more important things than you do for the many thousand fellers,

and if you got any such wages as we, you would soon grow more industrious in order to receive more.

But if you render any service that seems to us worth 10 and 100 times more than our own Labour,

why then you shall get 100 times more for it too. We, on the other hand, think also to produce

for you things for which you will regret as more highly than with the ordinary days wages.

We shall be willing to get along with each other, all right, if only we have first agreed on this,

that neither any longer need to present anything to the other.

Then we may perhaps actually go so far as to pay even not for pause and sit and old

an appropriate price for not parting from us by hunger and want.

For, if we want them to live, it is fitting also that we purchase their fulfilment of our will.

I say purchase and therefore do not mean a wretched arms, for their life is the property

even of those who cannot work. If we, no matter for what reason, want them not to withdraw this

life from us, we can mean to bring it to pass only by purchase.

Nay, we shall perhaps maybe because we like to have friendly faces about us,

even want a life of comfort for them. In short, we will nothing presented by you,

but neither will we present you with anything. For centuries we have handed arms to you

from good-hearted stupidity, have dulled out the might of the poor and given to the masters

the things that are not the masters, now just open your wallet for henceforth our

where rises in price quite enormously. We do not want to take from you anything,

anything at all, only you are to pay better for what you want to have,

what then have you, I have an estate of a thousand acres, and I am your playman,

and will henceforth attend your fields only for one fellow a day wages, then I will take another.

You won't find any, for we, no men, are no longer doing otherwise, and if one puts in a

parent who takes less, then let him beware of us. There is the house made, she too is now demanding

as much, and you will no longer find one below this price. Why, then is it all over with me?

Not so fast, you will doubtless take in as much as we, and if it should not be so,

we will take off so much that you shall have weather with to live like us.

But I am accustomed to live better, we have nothing against that, but it is not our lookout.

If you can clear more, go ahead, our weeds are higher, out underweights,

that you may have a good living. The rich man always puts off the poor with the words,

what does your want concern me? See to it how you make your way through the world.

That is your affair, not mine. Well, let us let it be our affair, then, and let us not

let the means that we have to realise value from ourselves to be piledward from us by the rich.

But you uncultured people really do not need so much. Well, we are taking somewhat more

in order, but for it we may procure the culture that we perhaps need. But if you thus bring down

the rich, who is there to support the arts and sciences hereafter? Oh well, we must make it

up by numbers. We club together, that gives a nice little sum. Besides, you rich men,

now buy only the most caseless books and the most lamentous bidonners, or a pair of lively dances

legs. Oh, it will start equality. No, my good old sir, nothing of equality. We only want to

count for what we are worth, and if you are worth more, you shall count for more right along.

We only want to be worth our price, and to show ourselves worth the price that you will pay.

Is the state likely to be able to awaken so secure a temper, and so forceful a self-consciousness

in the meal? Can it make mad feel himself? No, may it even do so much as set his goal for itself?

Can it want the individual to recognise his value, and realise this value from himself? Let us

keep the parts of the double question separate, and see first whether the state can bring about

such a thing, as the anonymity of the plowman is required. Only this anonymity can bring it to

pass, and a state floor would be evaded in a thousand ways by competition and in secret.

But can the state bear with it? The state cannot possibly bear with people suffering coercion,

from another than it, it could not therefore admit the self-help of the unanimous plowman

against those who want to engage below-a-wages. Suppose, however, that the state made the law,

and all of the plowman were in accord with it, could the state bear with it then?

In the isolated case, yes, but the isolated case is more than that. It is a case of principle.

The question therein is of the whole range of the ego's self-realisation of value from himself,

and therefore also of his self-consciousness against the state. So far, the communists

keep company, but as self-realisation of value from self-necessarily directs itself against the

state. So it does against society too. And therewith, leeches out beyond the commune and the

communeistic, out of egoism. Communism makes the maximum of the commonality, but every one

is a possessor, the poetor, into an irrefagable truth, into a reality, since the anxiety

with about obtaining man's thesis and everyone has from the start what he requires.

In his labour force, he has his competence, and if he makes no use of it, that is his fault.

The grasping and handing is at an end, and no competition is left, as they often know,

without food, because with every stroke of labour an adequate supply of being

needful is brought into the house. Now, for the first time, one is a real possessor,

because what one has in his labour force can no longer escape from him as it was continually

threatening to do under the system of competition. One is a carefully and assured possessor,

and one is this precisely by seeking his competence, no longer in a way, but in his own labour,

this competence for labour, and therefore by being a rather nothing, a man of only ideal wealth.

I, however, cannot content myself with the little bit ice rave up by my competence for labour,

because my competence does not consist nearly in my labour.

By labour I can perform the official functions of a president, a minister, etc.

These officers demand only a general culture, to which such a culture, as is generally attainable,

for general culture is not merely that which everyone has attained, but broadly that which everyone

can attain, and therefore every special culture, e.g. medical, military, theological,

which no cultivated man believes that they surpass his powers, or broadly only a skill possible

to all. But even if these officers may best in everyone, yet it is only the individual's

unique force, the kulit to him alone, that gives them, so to speak, life and significance.

That he does not manage his office like an ordinary man, but puts in the competence of his

uniqueness, this he is not yet pay for, when he is paid only in general as an official or a minister.

If he has done it so as to earn your fangs, and you wish to attain this bank worthy force of

their unique one, you does not pay him like a mere man, who performed only what was human,

but as one who accomplishes what is unique. Do the like with your labour, do.

There cannot be a general scheduled price fixed for my uniqueness, as there can for what I do as

man, only for the latter kind of scheduled price be set. Go right on then, setting up a general

appraisal of human labour, but do not deprive your uniqueness of its dessert. Human or general

needs can be satisfied through society, for its satisfaction of unique needs you must do some

concealing. A friend and a friendly service, or even an individualised service, society cannot

procure you, and yet you will every moment be in need of such a service, and on the slightest

occasion the choir somebody who is helpful to you. Therefore do not rely on society, but see to

it that you have the wherewithal to purchase the fulfilment of your wishes.

Whether money is to be retained among egoists, to the old stamp and inherited possession

adheres. If you no longer let yourself be paid a bit, it is ruined. If you do nothing for this

money, it loses all power. Council be inheritance, as you have broken off the executor's court

seal. For now, everything is an inheritance, whether it be already inherited or awaits its

heir. If it is yours, wherefore do you let it be sealed up from you? Why do you respect the seal?

But why should you not create a new money? Do you then annihilate the where in taking from it

the hereditary stamp? Now money is aware, and an essential means for confidence.

For it protects against the autification of resources, keeps them in flux and brings them

their exchange. If you know a better medium of exchange, go ahead. Yet it will be a money again.

It is not the money that does you damage, but your incompetence to take it. Let your competence

take effect, collect yourself, and there will be no lack of money. Of your money, the money of your

stamp. But working, I do not call letting the competence take effect. Those who are only

living for work and willing to work hard, are preparing for their own selves, the infallible

upshot, to be out of work. Good and bad luck depend on money. It is a power in the

Borges, period for this reason, that it is only rude of all hands like a girl, into solubi

wedded by nobody. All the romance and chivalry of moving put a dear object, counter life again

in competition. Money, an object of longing, is carried off by the bold nights of industry.

He, who has luck, takes home the bride. The raggum often has luck. He takes her into his household,

society, and destroys the virgin. In his house, she is no longer bride, but wife. And with her

virginity, the family name is also lost. As housewife, the maiden money is called labour or labour.

Is her husband's name? She is a possession of her husband's. To bring this figure to an end,

the child of labour and money is again a girl, an unwarded one and therefore, money, but with

a certain descent from labour, her father. The form of the place, the ed 5g, bears another stamp.

Finally, as regards competition once more, it has a continued existence by this bearing means,

that all do not attend to their affair and come to an understanding with each other about it.

Ragg e g is a need of all the inhabitants of the city. Therefore, they might easily agree on

setting up a public faith with. Instead of this, they leave the furnishing of the needful

to the computing bakers, just soon meet to the butchers, wine to wine dealers, etc.

Apporation competition is not equivalent to favouring the guild. The difference is this.

In the guild baking, etc. is the affair of the guild brothers. In competition,

the affair of chance competitors in the union of those who require baked goods and therefore

might affair yours. The affair of neither the guildic nor the concessionary baker, but the affair

of their united. If I do not trouble myself about my affair, I must be content with what

it pleases others to vouch save me. To have bread is my affair, my wish and desire,

and yet people leave that to the bakers and hope at most to obtain through their randling,

they're letting ahead of each other. Their rivalry ensured their competition and advantage

which one could not count on in the case of the guild brothers, who were lodged entirely and alone.

In a proprietorship of the baking franchise, what everyone requires everyone should also take a

hand in procuring and producing. It is his affair, his property, not the property of the guildic,

but concessionary master. Let us look back once more. The world belongs to the children of this world,

the children of men. It is no longer God's will but man's. As much every man can procure of it,

let him call his, only the true man, the state, human society or mankind, will look to it that

each shall make nothing else his own, then what he appropriates as man, are you in human fashion?

Unhuman appropriation is that which is not consented to by man. IE, it is a criminal appropriation,

as the human vice versa is a rightful one, one acquired in the way of law. So they talk since

revolution, but my property is not a thing. Since this has an existence independent of me,

IE my might is my own. Not this tree, but my might or control over it is what is mine.

Now, how is this might perversely expressed? They say I have a right to this tree,

or it is my rightful property. So I have earned it by might, that the might must last in order,

that the tree may also be held, or better, that the might is not a thing existing of itself,

but has existence sorry in the mighty ego, in me the mighty is forgotten.

Might, like another of my qualities, e.g. humanity, majesty, etc., is exalted to something

existing of itself, so that it still exists long after it has ceased to be my might.

Thus transformed into a ghost, might is right. This eternalized might is not extinguished even

with my death, but is transferred to bequeathed. Things now really belong not to me, but to right.

On the other side, this is nothing but an hallucination of vision,

where the individual's might becomes permanent, and a right only by others,

joining their might with his. The delusion consists in their believing that they cannot withdraw

their might. The same phenomenon, over again, might is separated from me. I cannot take back the

might that I gave to the possessor. One has granted power of attorney, has given away his power,

has renounced coming to a better mind. The proprietor can give up his might and his right,

to a thing by giving the thing away, squandering it, etc., and we should not be able likewise to

let go the might that we lend to him. The rightful man, the just, desires to call

nothing his own, that he does not have rightly or have the right to, and therefore only legitimate

property. Now, who is to be judged, and a judge his right to him? And last, surely man,

who imparts to him the rights of man? Then he can say in an indefinitely broadest sense

than terror. Humanity, the whole army, a lenium, Pluto, EG, the human is my property.

However, he may go about it, so long as he occupies this standpoint,

he cannot get clear of a judge, and in our time, the multiferious judges that had been selected

have set themselves against each other in two persons at deadly enmity.

To wit, in God and man, the one party appeal to divine right, the other to human right or the

rights of man. So much is clear, that in neither case does the individual do the entitling himself.

Just pick me out an action today, that would not be a violation of right. Every moment,

the rights of man are trampled underfoot by one side, while their opponents cannot open their

mouth without obtaining a blasphemy against divine right. Give and arms you more at a right of man,

because the relation of beggar and benefactor is an inhuman relation. Utter a doubt, you sin

against a divine right. Each dried bread with contentment, you violate the right of man by your

affinity. Eat it with this content, you revile divine right by your repriming.

There is not one among you who does not commit a crime at every moment. Your speeches are crimes,

and every hindrance to your freedom of speech is no less a crime. Yee of the menores all together.

Yet you are so only in that you always stand on the ground of right. I.e., in that you do not even

know and understand how to value the fact that you are criminals. Invariable or sacred property

has grown on this very ground. It is a judicial concept. A dark sees the bow in another's power,

and stands off only if it feels itself too weak. But man respects the other's right to his

own. The latter action, therefore, ranks as human, the former as brutal or egoistic.

And as here, so in general, the discalled human, when one sees in everything something spiritual,

here right. I.e. makes everything a ghost and takes his attitude toward it as toward a ghost,

which one can indeed scare away at its appearance, but cannot kill. It is human to look at what is

individual, not as individual, but as a gemiality. In nature, as such, I no longer respect anything,

but I know myself to be entitled to everything against it. In the tree, in that garden,

on the other hand, I must respect alienness. They say in one sided fashion,

property. I must keep my hand off it. This comes to an end only when I can indeed leave that tree

to another, as I leave my stick, etc. to another. But do not in advance regard it as alien to me.

I.e. sacred. Rather, I make to myself no cry, off-thelling it if I will, and it remains my property,

however long as I resign it to others. It is and remains mine. In the bankers fortune,

I as little see everything alien as Napoleon did in the turtories of kings. We have no dread of

conquering it, and we look about us also for the least here too. We strip off from it,

therefore, the spirit of alienness, of which we had been afraid.

Therefore, it is necessary that I do not lay claim to anything more as man, but to everything as I,

this I, and accordingly to nothing human, but to mine. I.e. nothing happens to me as man,

but what I will and because I will it. Rightfully, all legitimate, property of another,

will be only that which you are content to recognise as yours. If your content ceases,

then this property has lost legitimacy for you, and you will laugh at absolute right to it.

Besides, the Hivertube discussed property in the limited sense, there is help up to our reverent

heart and none property against which we are far less to sin. This property consists in spiritual

goods, in the sanctuary of the inner nature. What a man beholds sacred, no other is to guide at,

because untrue as it may be, and zealously as one may, in loving and modest wise, seek to

convince of true sanctity the man who adheres to it and believes in it, yet the sacred itself

is always to be honoured in it. The mistaken man does not believe in the sacred,

even though in an infinite essence of it, and so his belief in the sacred must at least be respected.

In ruder times than ours, it was customary to demand the particular faith and devotion to a

particular sacred essence, and they did not take their gentleness away with those who believe

otherwise, since however, freedom of belief spread itself more and more aboard. The generous God

and so Lord gradually knelt it into a pretty general its supreme being, and it satisfied humane

tolerance if only everyone revered something sacred. The Jews to the most human expression,

if sacred essence is man himself and the human. With the deceptive semblance, as if the human

were all together our own, and free from all the other worldliness, with which the divine is

tainted, yes, as if man were as much as I or you. Then they arise even the proud fancy that the

talk is no longer of the sacred essence, and that we now feel ourselves everywhere at home,

and no longer in the uncanny, i.e. in the sacred and in sacred awe. In the ecstasy over man

discovered at last, the ego will stick quite a pain passes unheard, and the spook that has become

so intimate is taken for our true ego. But humaneness is the same name, C, Guthi, and the humane

is only the most clarified sanctity. The egoist makes the reverse deflation, for this precise reason,

because you hold something sacred, I guibert you, and even if I respected everything in you,

your sanctuary is precisely what I should not respect. With these accused views, there must also be

assumed a contradictory relation to spiritual goods. The egoist insults them, the religious man,

i.e. everyone who puts his essence above himself, must constantly protect them. But what kind of

spiritual goods are to be protected, and what left unprotected depends entirely on the concept

that one forms of the supreme being, and he who fears God, e.g. has more to show to than he,

the liberal, who fears man. In spiritual goods we are in distinction from the sensuous, injured in

a spiritual way, and the sin against them consists in a direct justification, while again the sensuous,

a colloining or alienation takes place. The goods themselves are robbed of value and of

consecration, not merely taken away. The sacred is immediately compromised with the word irreverence,

or flippancy, is designated everything that can be committed as crime against spiritual goods.

i.e. against everything that is sacred for us, and scoffing, re-violin, contempt, that, etc.,

are only different shades of criminal flippancy. That desecration can be practiced in the most

manifold way, is here to be passed over, and only that desecration is to be preferentially

mentioned, which threatens the sacred with danger through an unrestricted threat.

End of Section 30