(continued)>Stirner never developed a defense of the institutional basis of property.
Again, you are illiterate because Stirner's defense of property isn't institutional, or nor does the defense of capitalism have to rely on "institutional arguments", but consequential benefit - as I previously demonstrated. A union egoists can selfishly defend private property from expropriators such communists so that they may benefit from its ownership. >All legislators and judges are spooked not egoists
This is false, one, because Stirner explicitly makes the argument that we are all egoists. Secondly, you could argue they are egoists because people become judges, legislators out of the selfish need of power and wealth. More so, your argument of them being "judges out of justice" doesn't stop them from being egoists. Stirner identifies the later of being involuntary egoists, and nor does he find it to be morally wrong as you seem to be implying and misunderstanding. Stirner's ""egoism" is nominal, Der Einziger, the unique one, can do whatever it pleases along as it has the willingness to do so. It is not prescriptive as you keep implying.>"I say: Free yourself as far as you can, and you have done your part; because it is not given to everyone to break through all limits, or, more eloquently: that is not a limit for everyone which is one to the others. Consequently, don't exhaust yourself on the limits of othersits enough if you tear down your own."
Your problem, and a lot of people who misunderstand Stirner because of their lack of understanding Hegel's capitalist inclinations, Stirner's appropriation of that, and their lack understanding the influence Spinoza-Fichte had on Stirner's thought. You have a strange decontextualized understanding of Stirner, and it shows with your clear illiterate assumptions of his thought. You should probably read the book, his critics, and Hegelian scholars who have made his thought more digestible for someone as clueless as yourself.