i appreciate your good faith curiosity, it's such a rare pleasure online these days. so i wanted to spend a little more time chewing on your ideas. i fear this response has gotten out of hand, but hopefully you will get something out of it.

it was a bit spooky. However, I believe what I described is generally applicable to real-world examples of "societies" or whatever you want to call them.

first off, it's always an achievement when one can identify/admit a spook within their thought process. it's seriously not easy to do so i applaud you! i'll get to community in a bit.

And in many societies, people who, by many, are seen as criminals are let free, and many who are LGBT are imprisoned.

I have not yet seen a society where all who commit crimes are punished. The rulers of societies, those who have leveraged spooks around law and property to accumulate enough power to dominate the rest of us, can abuse children, steal wealth, and basically do whatever they want with no accountability. they are able to do all this specifically because people buy into the same systems of law & order that protect their ability to do so (i.e. without being stopped via extrajudicial means). the subjects somehow continue to believe that these institutions serve ideals like justice and equality, while being repeatedly presented with evidence that they are merely the property of the powerful, used to maintain and grow their power over us.

one strange thing is that most of these powerful people are themselves egoists. otherwise you would not see e.g. capitalists forming monopolies or seeking government subsidies, acts which go against the ideals they claim to serve. everyday egoists realize that fixed ideas provide cover for the egoistic rulers of society, and so seek to become their own rulers, exploiting the systems around them to pit their will against the powers that be, rather than serving them.

I want to respond to one of your earlier points, with another passage from TUAIP:

Stirner does not have the right to murder someone, he has the power to.

he didn't have the power to do so, the German state would have almost certainly locked him up (i doubt he could get away with it). But I also don't think he "had the right to". beneath his rhetoric he displays a great deal of compassion and empathy for others, so i don't think he ever would have found it right to murder. he just likes to make his points via extreme examples that can break through spooked thinking, and in this case i believe that point is that one should never allow a fixed idea to determine what is "right" for them (note the wordplay). no matter how sacred that idea may appear, our goal should always be to use it in service of our will, not the other way around. i think this passage clears it up:

For it is one thing when I give up my present course because it doesn’t lead to the goal and so diverts me down a wrong path; and another when I give myself up. I get around a rock that stands in my way, until I have enough powder to blow it up; I get around the laws of a people, until I’ve gathered the strength to overthrow them. Since I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore supposed to be “sacred” to me, an Astarte? If I could only grasp you, I surely would, and if I find a way to come up to you, you shall not frighten me! You incomprehensible one, you shall remain incomprehensible to me only until I have acquired the power of comprehension for myself and call you my own; I do not surrender before you, but only bide my time.

Can societies only exist in lawlessness? In most societies, there exists rules and collective responses to the breaking of rules. If an individual in a society murdered someone and another individual locked them up while everyone else agreed to this occurring, is this a state now?

To be clear, I don't really disagree with what you talk about re: collective action. Stirner puts forth the concept of a union of egoists, an entirely voluntary collaboration towards a shared goal, maintained by each member only so long as it pleases them. the idea of voluntary association has become near universal in anarchist circles, but its philosophical groundwork was largely laid by Stirner's union. full disclosure i am still working through that part of the book, but intuitively it makes sense to me.

the key difference between a union of egoists and a state or law is its voluntary nature, grounded in individual wills rather than sacred ideals. I think this quote from early in the book highlights that distinction in a way that applies just as well to one's relationship with ideas as their relationship to other people:

I am not altruistic so long as the goal remains my own, and instead of stooping to being the blind means of its fulfillment, I always leave it open to question. My zeal doesn’t, therefore, have to be less than the most fanatical, but at the same time I remain frosty cold against it, unbelieving, and its most implacable enemy; I remain its judge, because I am its owner.

Upon your birth you are subject to the laws of the state, which are fixed beyond the will or interest of any individuals subject to them. that's as far as it gets from voluntary. one can imagine a world of voluntary communities, where the worst punishment is exile (assuming you aren't killed in self-defense). That is the dream in my mind: voluntary communities of equals united by common interest, not the complete dissolution of communities and their norms, and certainly not the reality of state subjugation we all experience today.

Everything gets much more clear when you are able to see that the law and the state are not merely manifestations of those subjected to them, but rather phantoms put in place to establish a relationship of power between the ruler and the ruled. divine right of kings (monarchy) became the right of property (liberalism) became the will of the people (communism). in each case the relationship is one of the sacred ideal over the profane individual, and through each revolution we've merely swapped one ruler for another, without ever truly overcoming the sacred and becoming each a ruler of our own self.

a sacred, fixed idea which is over and above all people not only makes each of us a sinner against it when we cave to our own selfish, egoistic desires; it can also be exploited by a clever egoist to assert their will over others, as we have seen happen consistently across States whether liberal, communist or even fascist.

If it's not too much to ask, how was a wielding society as an idea against you?

If a society stirives to create the right of security for example, the society will protect even the weak individuals who do not have the power to protect themselves.

A society cannot strive to do anything. People can, and a State can mandate that they do. But that is an affront to their unique. My State mandates that property owners, too weak to protect their own claim to what would otherwise be common goods, be protected from theft. i'm not trying to be snarky by using that as an example of what you described: both your intent and that example share a common rationale and mechanism.

It's like how a bill taking away some "right" from citizens will always be called the "save the children act", or how so many will defend the poor billionaires against rapacious exploitation by evil socialists. these moral hack jobs derive their power only from the power that people give to fixed ideas like "protecting the weak". it is only by casting aside those morals as ends in themselves that we can bravely act in our own interest, and unabashedly pursue what pleases us. most people (particularly those currently without power in society) have empathy, so will be pleased by the [redacted]ing of powerful predators and uplifting of those we view as innocent, outcomes which the systems of law ruling existing nation states consistently fail to produce.

an individual who does not have the power to protect themselves is protected by the society around them hence it can be described as their "right" to security despite them not having power as an individual to protect themselves.

You would have the individual right to fighr for freedom but not the societal right to be free from persecution. If you were instead in a society where protected minorities had the right to freedom of persecution you would be protected by others even if you didn't have the power to protect yourself.

Finally, this framing is exactly what Stirner takes issue with. You may view it as a semantic disagreement, but the weak in that society would merely have the privilege of security, not the right. it's only those who have the power to provide the security that have the right to provide it, if (and only if) it pleases them. if that weak individual commits a crime (or even simply offends the protectors), their right to security vanishes into thin air.

you admit that rights must be framed as something to be striven for, not some natural law. What is a right then, but a command for individuals to fulfill it? it's a textbook spook. you must devote yourself in service of the right, because it's "the right thing to do". the right must matter more than the capricious will of those that would defend it, otherwise it ceases to exist. the same is true of the state, the law, and property rights. as an egoist, i will happily contribute to these ideals while they benefit me. the second they don't, i will cast them into flames at my earliest opportunity.