What I Learned from Max Stirner

I struggled to understand this particular essay. Maybe it's because of the translation, or because of the style of writing, I'm not sure. However, this is my understanding of the first few pages of chapter 3 of "The Anarchist Hadbook" organized by Michael Malice. The essay is by Max Stirner, taken from his book "The Ego and His Own" written in 1844.

This essay uses the word ‘right’ in many different contexts. It can mean ‘correct’ or ‘moral’, as well as to describe ‘entitlement’ or ‘privilege’. Additionally, the author uses it to mean ‘restoring to a justice’. It is difficult to differentiate which one he is talking about throughout the text. I do my best to understand how it’s used in each situation.

What is ‘right’? Is it sovereignty and individual will? Aristotle says that justice is right, and is the benefit of living in civilized society. But does society determine what is right and what is wrong, or is right and wrong objective, even when society disagrees? If I believe I am right, or in the right, or have the right, and society disagrees, how can there be justice? 

Who determines right from wrong; who determines what is justice? If someone of high intelligence determines what is right, must I agree? If I disagree, am I to be considered wrong? If others disagree, who is right? Can one judge me right while another judge me wrong? 

Should we leave decisions of right and wrong to the law? Should a judge in a court decide for us, whether we are right, have the right to life, or deserve justice?

Is power or authority the determining factor for judging right from wrong? What if I have power over another and judge them to be wrong? What if those with power over me disagree? Who is right? The one with the most power? What if we are of equal power? What is power?

If another is to decide right and wrong for me, doesn’t that make me a slave? Since I am not allowed to determine right and wrong for myself, I must be submissive to another’s ideals. If I am not allowed the right to my own thoughts, then I am merely a cog in a machine, with no allowance for individual determination.

“Whether I am in the right or not, there is no judge but myself. Others can judge only whether they endorse my right and whether it exists as right for them, too.”

My Understanding of The Social Contract Written by William Godwin

Does the social contract apply to me? To whom does the “social contract” apply? How did I consent to a “social contract?” Did someone else consent for me? How does anyone consent? Is this consent explicit or implicit?  

Our ancestors did us no justice by choosing the laws and regulations under which we all must now live. They took away our independence and prosperity when they enacted a ‘one size fits all for all eternity’ system of governance. Surely, I shouldn’t be expected to live exactly as another individual.

Maybe there should be a time limit on established systems. But what would that time limit be? Would the contract my father entered into before I was born apply to me as a child? Would I be obliged to submit until I’ve reached the age of consent? What age would that be? Would it be the same for everyone, or would some sort of test apply?

It is usually said that if I live quietly under the current administration of laws and regulations, that I therefore consent to them. That means that anyone living quietly in a communist or authoritarian government thereby consents, when most simply have chosen the lesser of two evils. And those most affected by these evils, the poor, usually have no way to remove themselves to another territory that would be less evil. 

Additionally, the evils of any particular government are much harsher on natives of a given territory than an immigrant. The foreigner who relocates on his own accord is most likely to agree with the established government because they likely had a choice between some other form of rule. The native had no choice, for he was born into it and had no say!

To what extent do I have to obey this social contract? If I don’t vehemently oppose my government, does that suggest that I must obey some, most or all laws? Am I allowed to know all laws in existence?

At what age should I be held responsible for knowing these laws? If I were to come of age, and explicitly make an agreement to follow these laws, would it be said that I would forever be under this nation? What if, as I age, I were to come across more information that changed my mind? 

What if this consent was given a time limit, as said before? What’s the difference between that consent being a lifelong agreement, or just a year, a month, a week or an hour? Can I consent for the time being, and then remove that consent when I no longer agree? How clearly are these laws written anyway? Who can even understand the long winded wording?

It’s hard enough to get two people to agree on one thing, let alone get a whole nation to agree on a large volume of laws!

And what happens when laws change? Because I agreed to a certain representative, or a certain form of government, could it be said that I consent, by default, to all future changes in their opinion, policies or regulations?

If it is true that the government is founded upon consent, as the Declaration of Independence so adamantly proclaims, then it can have no power over those individuals who do not consent. And if it is impossible for more than two people to agree upon a volume of rules and regulations, then it is impossible for one individual to represent a group or even another individual. And since one cannot represent another, it is impossible to hold the individual accountable for their representative’s decisions in government.

Therefore, the “Social Contract” is impossible.