"In contrast to Stirner's rejection of civil disobedience is his notori­ous endorsement of crime. Stirner denies that crime is peculiarly concerned with direct relations between individuals; rather, it mediates the relation between an individual and the sacred (in the form of legality). The criminal is punished not by individuals for actions which have harmed them, but by the state for actions which have undermined some fixed idea (without the legal recognition of the sanctity of marriage, for example, infidelity is not a 'crime' what­ever its effects on individuals). Crime will accordingly disappear with the epoch of egoism, when actions are judged by their effect on individual interests (not their effect on the sacred). Meanwhile, Stirner defends the individual act of crime as an assertion of individ­ual autonomy against its chief usurper, weakening the 'cement' (respect for law) which holds the state together. In more generalized form - and drawing a distinction between 'revolution' (which seeks to erect a new social order) and 'insurrection' (which represents the opposition of individuals to any order) - Stirner even suggests that crime has a unique insurrectionary potential which might eventually destroy the state."