Stirner did not claim to be an anarchist. Indeed, the one anarchist theoretician with whose writings he was familiar, Proudhon, is one of his favourite critical targets. Undoubtedly, there are some parallels between certain of Stirner's views and those of the anarchists, but, as I discovered after many years of trying to make the two fit, in the last analysis they do not and cannot. Stirner's philosophy has nothing against domination of another if that is within my power and in my interest. So no one needs another as a person, but needs him as a giver.
Society is our state of nature.
Nor is he a moralist - he is an amoralist. In her concluding remark Ferguson backs away from the challenge of Stirner's egoism. It is a philosophical confidence trick for which no conscious egoist will fall.