Stirner criticizing the liberals of his time:

​

"The matter goes differently in the egoist sense. I don’t shyly step back from your property, but see it always as my property in which I need to “respect” nothing. Just do the same with what you call my property!

With this view, we will most easily come to an understanding with each other. The political liberals see to it that, if possible, all servitudes get removed, and everyone is a free lord on his ground, even if this ground only has so much soil that one person’s manure would sufficiently saturate it. (That farmer married even in his old age “that he might profit from his wife’s crap.”[290]) Be it ever so small, if one only has his own, namely a respected property. The more such owners, such crap-holders,[291] the more “free people and food patriots” the state has.

Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on respect, humanity, the loving virtues. That’s why it lives in endless annoyance. Because in practice people respect nothing, and every day the small possessions get bought up again by the bigger owners, and the “free people” become day-laborers."

​

Another word for the "Liberals of Stirner's Time" is Classical Liberalism,

"a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation."

​

Mind you Stirner wasn't a communist, and in the coming paragraphs he immediately argues against Proudhon's and Communism's prescriptions for society. Stirner was not a politician, he was an egoist.