Individualist anarchism
14936
226039915
2008-07-16T15:42:36Z
Operation Spooner
4835874
/* The American traditions */ Clearer.
{{Anarchism}}
{{libertarianism}}
'''Individualist anarchism''' (also '''anarchist individualism''', '''anarcho-individualism''', '''individualistic anarchism''', '''libertarian anarchism'''<ref>Morris, Christopher. 1992. An Essay on the Modern State. Cambridge University Press. p. 61. (Used synonymously with "individualist anarchism" when referring to individualist anarchism that supports a market society)</ref>) refers to any of several traditions that hold that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority"<ref name="heywood" >Heywood, Andrew, Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave, ISBN 0-312-23381-7, 2000, p. 46.</ref> and that the imposition of "the system of democracy, of majority decision" over the decision of the individual "is held null and void."<ref>[[Irving Louis Horowitz|Horowitz, Irving Louis]]. ''The Anarchists''. Aldine Transaction 2005, p. 49</ref>
<!-- Relationship with other forms of anarchism -->
''Individualist'' anarchism is seen by many as one of two main categories or wings of [[anarchism]] — the other has been called ''[[social anarchism|social]]'',<ref>McKay, Iain, et al.. [[An Anarchist FAQ]].</ref> ''[[socialism|socialist]]'',<ref>Ostergaard, Geoffey. anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.</ref> ''[[collectivism|collectivist]]'',<ref>Morris, Christopher W. 1998. ''An Essay on the Modern State''. Cambridge University Press. p 50 (uses "collectivist" and "communitarian" synonymously)</ref> or ''[[communitarianism|communitarian]]''<ref>Wolff. Robert Paul. "Anarchism". ''The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World'', 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press</ref> anarchism.{{ref label|A|α|none}} One view is that the individualist wing of anarchism emphasises [[negative liberty]], i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual, while those in the collectivist wing emphasise [[positive liberty]] to achieve one's potential and argue that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement".<ref>Harrison, Kevin and Boyd, Tony. Understanding Political Ideas and Movements. Manchester University Press 2003, p. 251</ref> Another distinction is that unlike the social/socialist/collectivist/communitarian wing which advocates common ownership as a means to eliminate unequal economic power, individualist anarchism is supportive of property being held privately, and in the case of the most prevalent strain of anarcho-individualism, advocates that this property be distributed through markets.<ref>Freeden, Micheal. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019829414X. pp. 314</ref> [[Philosophical anarchism]], i.e. anarchism that does not advocate revolution to eliminate the state, "is a component especially of individualist anarchism."<ref>Outhwaite, William & Tourain, Alain (Eds.). (2003). Anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought (2nd Edition, p. 12). Blackwell Publishing</ref>
<!-- Distinctions within Individualist anarchism: should be a summary of major paragraphs below -->
Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies; there are "several traditions of individualist anarchism."<ref>Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 2.</ref> Early individualist anarchists were motivated by progressive [[rationalism]] (in the case of [[William Godwin]]), [[Max Stirner]]'s [[rational egoism]], and [[Herbert Spencer]]'s view that social evolution will render the state redundant.{{ref label|B|β|none}} [[Individualism|Individualist]] forms of anarchism have appeared most often in the [[United States]] among such figures as [[Henry David Thoreau]],<ref>Johnson, Ellwood. ''The Goodly Word: The Puritan Influence in America Literature'', Clements Publishing, 2005, p. 138. Also, ''Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences'', edited by Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, Alvin Saunders Johnson, 1937, p. 12.</ref> [[Josiah Warren]], [[Benjamin Tucker]], [[Lysander Spooner]], [[Ezra Heywood]], [[Stephen Pearl Andrews]], and [[Murray Rothbard]].<ref name="Rothbard">"Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." [[Paul Avrich|Avrich, Paul]]. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282</ref> Notable contemporary individualist anarchists include [[Kevin Carson]], [[Joe Peacott]], [[Wendy McElroy]], [[David D. Friedman]], and [[Robert Paul Wolff]].
According to Christopher Morris, individualist anarchism which supports a market society – such as that of Friedman and Rothbard – has had a greater level of revived interest, especially in the United States, than has communitarian anarchism, which is more widespread in Europe.<ref>Morris, Christopher. 1992. ''An Essay on the Modern State''. Cambridge University Press. pp. 61 & 74. </ref>
==Overview==
While individualist anarchism is often seen as including [[William Godwin]] and [[Max Stirner]], it is most often associated with the ''market anarchism'' found in the American Tradition, which advocates individual ownership of the produce of labor and a [[market economy]] where this property may be bought and sold. However, this form of individualist anarchism is not exclusive to the Americas. It is also found in the philosophy of other radical individualists, such as those in England and France though almost all were influenced by the early American individualists. Individualist anarchism of this type contrasts with [[social anarchism|social(ist) anarchism]] which holds that productive property should be in the control of the society at large in various forms of worker collectives and that the produce of labor should be collectivized. Most of the individualist anarchists in the 19th and 18th centuries adhered to a labor theory of value, and hence, saw profit as subverting natural law. However, there have been a few theorists in the 19th and 18th centuries that did not adhere to labor-value. These include [[Jakob Mauvillon]], [[Julius Faucher]], [[Gustave de Molinari]], [[Auberon Herbert]], and [[Herbert Spencer]]. By the 20th century, many rejected the labor theory of value, especially its [[just price]] interpretation, for the mainstream [[marginal utility]] theory of value: [[Albert Jay Nock]], [[Murray Rothbard]] and [[David D. Friedman]] among others.
There is a pure egoist form of individualist anarchism, derived from the writings of Max Stirner, which supports the individual doing exactly what he pleases, taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules.<ref>Miller, David. "anarchism." 1987. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p 11</ref> Stirner preached self-assertion and foresaw a "Union of Egoists" who are drawn together by respect for each other's ruthlessness.<ref>Woodcock. George. 2004. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press. p 20</ref> However, individualist anarchists are typically [[market anarchist]]s. Their essential objection to the state is that it is a monopoly on the use of force in that it punishes those who would (personally, or through mutual aid or contract) enforce their own rights, and because it requires purchase of that monopoly service through coercive taxation.<ref>S.B. Drury. Robert Nozick And the Right to Property.Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present: Essays. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Parel, Anthony & Thomas Flanagan, eds. p. 361</ref> They believe that the institutions necessary for the function of a [[free market]], which may include money, police, and courts, should be supplied by the market itself. But, beyond this there is disagreement among different market anarchists in regard to particular issues.
Individualist anarchists use the term "capitalism" in different ways: Some, such as Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Kevin Carson use "capitalism" to mean the monopolization of capital,<ref>Schwartzman, Jack. Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth-Century American Anarchists. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 2003). p. 325</ref><ref>Carson, Kevin, ''Studies in Mutualist Political Economy'', preface and chapter 5.</ref> while others, such as Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and Wendy McElroy<ref>McElroy, Wendy. Capitalism Versus the Free Market. <http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.855</ref> define "capitalism" as a laissez-faire free market capitalist economy.<ref>Tormey, Simon, ''Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide'', Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 "Pro-capitalist anarchism, is as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the U.S. where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."</ref> [[Anarcho-capitalism]] is a political philosophy that emerged in the middle of the 20th century, through the writings of [[Murray Rothbard]] with his rejection of the nineteenth century individualists' [[labor theory of value]]. [[Agorism]] is a form of market anarchism popularized by the late [[Samuel Edward Konkin III]], which emphasizes counter-economic activity, and is described by agorists as [[left-libertarian]].<ref name="newlibman"/> [[anti-capitalism|Anti-capitalist]] individualist anarchism declined through much of the twentieth century, but has recently aroused renewed interest.{{ref label|C|γ|none}}
Individualist anarchism is sometimes seen as an evolution of [[classical liberalism]], and hence, has been called "liberal anarchism."<ref name="liberal anarchism">[http://www.weisbord.org/conquest8.htm ''Liberal Anarchism'' Chapter 8 of ''Conquest of Power'' by Albert Weisbord]. Also, "Whereas collectivist anarchists derive their ideas from socialism, individualist anarchists derive their ideas largely from classical liberal thinking." Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thornes (2003), p. 3</ref> Benjamin Tucker, for example, was influenced by [[Herbert Spencer]], as he took up Spencer's "[[law of equal liberty]]."
==Anarchists and traditions==
====William Godwin====
{{main|William Godwin}}
[[Image:WilliamGodwin.jpg|thumb|left|[[James Northcote]], ''[[William Godwin]],'' oil on canvas, 1802, the [[National Portrait Gallery]]], William Godwin, a radical [[liberalism|liberal]] and [[utilitarian]].]]
[[William Godwin]] was an individualist anarchist<ref name=woodcock20>Woodcock, George. 2004. ''Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements''. Broadview Press. p. 20</ref> and [[philosophical anarchist]] who was influenced by the ideas of the [[Age of Enlightenment]],<ref name=Encarta>"Anarchism", ''[[Encarta]] Online Encyclopedia'' 2006 (UK version)</ref>and developed what many consider the first expression of [[anarchist schools of thought|modern anarchist thought]].<ref name="godwinsep">{{sep entry|godwin|William Godwin|Mark Philip|2006-05-20}}</ref> Godwin was, according to [[Peter Kropotkin]], "the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his work."<ref name="EB1910">Peter Kropotkin, [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html "Anarchism"], ''[[Encyclopaedia Britannica]], 1910</ref><ref>Godwin himself attributed the first anarchist writing to [[Edmund Burke]]'s ''[http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Burke0061/Vindication/0339_Bk.html Vindication of Natural Society]''. "Most of the above arguments may be found much more at large in Burke's ''Vindication of Natural Society''; a treatise in which the evils of the existing political institutions are displayed with incomparable force of reasoning and lustre of eloquence…" – footnote, Ch. 2 ''[[Political Justice]]'' by William Godwin.</ref> Godwin advocated extreme individualism, proposing that all cooperation in labor be eliminated<ref name=godwineb>Godwin, William. (2006). In Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia. Retrieved [[December 7]], [[2006]], from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9037183</ref> Godwin felt that discrimination on any grounds besides ability was intolerable.
Godwin's individualism was to such a radical degree that he even opposed individuals performing together in orchestras, writing in ''[[Political Justice]]'' that "everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil."<ref name=godwineb/> The only apparent exception to this opposition to cooperation is the spontaneous association that may arise when a society is threatened by violent force. One reason he opposed cooperation is he believed it to interfere with an individual's ability to be benevolent for the greater good. Godwin opposes the idea of government, but wrote that a [[Limited government|minimal state]] as a present "necessary evil"<ref name=pj>{{cite book |title=[[Political Justice|Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Modern Morals and Manners]] |last=Godwin |first=William |authorlink=William Godwin |year=1796 |publisher=G.G. and J. Robinson |oclc=2340417 |origyear=1793}}</ref> that would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge.<ref name="godwinsep"/> He expressly opposed [[democracy]], fearing oppression of the individual by the majority (though he believed democracy to be preferable to [[dictatorship]]).
Godwin supported individual ownership of property, defining it as "the empire to which every man is entitled over the produce of his own industry."<ref name=pj/> However, he also advocated that individuals give to each other their surplus property on the occasion that others have a need for it, without involving trade (e.g. ''[[gift economy]]''). Thus, while people have the right to private property, they ''should'' give it away as enlightened [[altruists]]. This was to be based on [[utilitarian]] principles; he said: "Every man has a right to that, the exclusive possession of which being awarded to him, a greater sum of benefit or pleasure will result than could have arisen from its being otherwise appropriated."<ref name=pj/> However, benevolence was not to be enforced, being a matter of free individual "private judgement." He did not advocate a community of goods or assert collective ownership as is embraced in [[communism]], but his belief that individuals ought to share with those in need was influential on the later development of [[anarchist communism]].
Godwin's political views were diverse and do not perfectly agree with any of the ideologies that claim his influence; writers of the ''[[Socialist Standard]]'', organ of the [[Socialist Party of Great Britain]], consider Godwin both an individualist and a communist;<ref name="Godwin">"William Godwin, Shelly and Communism" by ALB, The Socialist Standard</ref> [[anarcho-capitalist]] [[Murray Rothbard]] did not regard Godwin as being in the individualist camp at all, referring to him as the "founder of communist anarchism";<ref name=""rothbard/burke>Rothbard, Murray. "[http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard11.html Edmund Burke, Anarchist]."</ref> and historian [[Albert Weisbord]] considers him an individualist anarchist without reservation.<ref name="conquest8">[http://www.weisbord.org/conquest8.htm Chapter Eight, LIBERTARIANISM<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Some writers see a conflict between Godwin's advocacy of "private judgement" and utilitarianism, as he says that ethics requires that individuals give their surplus property to each other resulting in an egalitarian society, but, at the same time, he insists that all things be left to individual choice.<ref name="godwinsep"/> Many of Godwin's views changed over time, as noted by [[Peter Kropotkin]].
====Pierre-Joseph Proudhon====
[[Image:Pierre Joseph Proudhon.jpg|thumb|right|180px|[[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]], the first self-identified anarchist.]]
{{main|Pierre-Joseph Proudhon}}
France's Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first philosopher to label himself an "anarchist."<ref name=bbc>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20061207.shtml "Anarchism"], [[BBC Radio 4]] program, [[In Our Time (BBC Radio 4)|In Our Time]], Thursday [[December 7]] [[2006]]. Hosted by [[Melvyn Bragg]] of the BBC, with John Keane, Professor of Politics at [[University of Westminster]], [[Ruth Kinna]], Senior Lecturer in Politics at [[Loughborough University]], and [[Peter Marshall (author)|Peter Marshall]], philosopher and historian.</ref> Some consider Proudhon to be an individualist anarchist<ref>{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia Americana]] |editor=George Edward Rines |year=1918 |publisher=Encyclopedia Americana Corp. |location=New York |oclc=7308909 |pages=624 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Hamilton | first = Peter | title = Emile Durkheim | publisher = Routledge | location = New York | year = 1995 | isbn = 0415110475 |pages=79}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Faguet | first = Emile | title = Politicians & Moralists of the Nineteenth Century | publisher = Books for Libraries Press | location = Freeport | year = 1970 | isbn = 0836918282 |pages=147}}</ref>, while some others regard him to be a [[social anarchism|social(ist) anarchist]]<ref>Bowen, James & Purkis, Jon. 2004. ''Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age''. [[Manchester University Press]]. p. 24</ref> / communitarian anarchist.<ref>Knowles, Rob. "Political Economy from below : Communitarian Anarchism as a Neglected Discourse in Histories of Economic Thought". ''History of Economics Review'', No.31 Winter 2000.</ref>). Some commentators do not include Proudhon as an individualist anarchist for the reason that he was in favor of association in large industries, rather than individual control.<ref>Woodcock, George. ''Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements'', Broadview Press, 2004, p. 20</ref> Nevertheless, he was influential among some of the American individualists. In the 1840s and 1850s, [[Charles A. Dana]],<ref>Dana, Charles A. [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/proudhon/dana.html Proudhon and his "Bank of the People"] (1848).</ref> and [[William B. Greene]] introduced Proudhon's works to the [[United States]]. Greene adapted Proudhon's mutualism to American conditions and introduced it to [[Benjamin R. Tucker]].<ref>Tucker, Benjamin R., "On Picket Duty", ''Liberty (Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order)'' (1881–1908); [[5 January]] [[1889]]; 6, 10; APS Online
pg. 1</ref>
Proudhon opposed government privilege that protects capitalist, banking and land interests, and the accumulation or acquisition of property (and any form of [[coercion]] that led to it) which he believed hampers competition and keeps wealth in the hands of the few. Proudhon favoured a right of individuals to retain the product of their labor as their own property, but believed that any property beyond that which an individual produced and could possess was illegitimate. Thus, he saw private property as both essential to liberty and a road to tyranny, the former when it resulted from labor and was required for labor and the latter when it resulted in exploitation (profit, interest, rent, tax). He generally called the former "possession" and the latter "property." For large-scale industry, he supported workers associations to replace wage labour and opposed the ownership of land.
Proudhon maintained that those who labor should retain the entirety of what they produce, and that [[monopoly|monopolies]] on credit and land are the forces that prohibit such. He advocated an economic system that included private property as possession and exchange market but without profit, which he called [[mutualism (economic theory)|mutualism]]. It is Proudhon's philosophy that was explicitly rejected by [[Joseph Dejacque]] in the inception of [[anarchist-communism]], with the latter asserting directly to Proudhon in a letter that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." An individualist rather than [[anarchist communist]],<ref>{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia Americana]] |editor=George Edward Rines |year=1918 |publisher=Encyclopedia Americana Corp. |location=New York |oclc=7308909 |pages=624 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Hamilton | first = Peter | title = Emile Durkheim | publisher = Routledge | location = New York | year = 1995 | isbn = 0415110475 |pages=79}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Faguet | first = Emile | title = Politicians & Moralists of the Nineteenth Century | publisher = Books for Libraries Press | location = Freeport | year = 1970 | isbn = 0836918282 |pages=147}}</ref> Proudhon said that "communism...is the very denial of society in its foundation..."<ref>Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. ''The Philosophy of Misery: The Evolution of Capitalism''. BiblioBazaar, LLC (2006). ISBN 1426409087 pp. 217</ref> and famously declared that "[[property is theft]]!" in reference to his rejection of ownership rights to land being granted to a person who is not using that land.
After Dejacque and others split from Proudhon due to the latter's support of individual property and an exchange economy, the relationship between the individualists, who continued in relative alignment with the philosophy of Proudhon, and the anarcho-communists was characterised by various degrees of antagonism and harmony. For example, individualists like Tucker on the one hand translated and reprinted the works of [[collectivist anarchism|collectivists]] like [[Mikhail Bakunin]], while on the other hand rejected the economic aspects of collectivism and communism as incompatible with anarchist ideals.
===Max Stirner===
[[Image:Max stirner.jpg|thumb|left|[[Max Stirner]] was the first of the [[egoism|egoist]] individualist anarchists. Portrait by [[Friedrich Engels]].]]
{{main|Philosophy of Max Stirner}}
[[Max Stirner]] was a philosopher whose "name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism."<ref name="SEP">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. </ref> In 1844, his ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' (''Der Einzige and sein Eigentum'' which may literally be translated as ''The Unique Individual and His Property''<ref>Moggach, Douglas. The New Hegelians. Cambridge University Press. p. 177</ref>) was published, which is considered to be "a founding text in the tradition of individualist anarchism."<ref name="SEP-stirner">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Max Stirner</ref> Stirner held that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is his power to obtain what he desires.<ref>The Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge. Encyclopedia Corporation. p. 176</ref> He proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions - including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society - were mere ''spooks'' in the mind. Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members."<ref>Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism: Left, Right and Green'', San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994, pp. 95-96</ref>
Property simply comes about through might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!".<ref>Stirner, Max. The Ego and Its Own, p. 248</ref> His embrace of [[egoism]] is in stark contrast to Godwin's [[altruism]]. Stirner was opposed to communism, seeing it as a form of authority over the individual.
This position on property is much different from the native American, natural law, form of individualist anarchism, which defends the inviolability of the private property that has been earned through labor<ref>Weir, David. Anarchy & Culture. University of Massachusetts Press. 1997. p. 146</ref> and trade. However, in 1886 Benjamin Tucker rejected the natural rights philosophy and adopted Stirner's egoism, with several others joining with him. This split the American individualists into fierce debate, "with the natural rights proponents accusing the egoists of destroying libertarianism itself."<ref>McElroy, Wendy. [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LiteratureOfLiberty0352/0353-15_1981v3.html Benjamin Tucker, Individualism, & Liberty: Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order]. LITERATURE OF LIBERTY: A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY LIBERAL THOUGHT (1978-1982). Institute for Human Studies. Autumn 1981, VOL. IV, NO. 3</ref> Other Egoists include [[James L. Walker]], [[Sidney Parker (anarchist)|Sidney Parker]], and [[Dora Marsden]].
In Russia, individualist anarchism inspired by Stirner and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] attracted a small following of bohemian artists and intellectuals, as well as a few lone-wolf's who found self-expression in crime and violence. They rejected organizing, believing that only unorganized individuals were safe from coercion and domination, believing this kept them true to the ideals of anarchism.<ref>Avrich, Paul. The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. Russian Review, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Oct., 1967). p. 343</ref>
Stirner's philosophy has also influenced some libertarian communists and anarcho-communists. "For Ourselves Council for Generalized Self-Management" discusses Stirner and speaks of a "communist egoism," which is said to be a "synthesis of individualism and collectivism," and says that "greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society."<ref>For Ourselves, [http://home.teleport.com/~rasputin/RTBGreedy-v1_2_5-en.htm] ''The Right to Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything'', 1974.</ref> Forms of libertarian communism such as [[Situationism]] are strongly Egoist in nature.<ref>see, for example, Christopher Gray, ''Leaving the Twentieth Century'', p. 88.</ref> Anarcho-communist [[Emma Goldman]] was influenced by both Stirner and [[Peter Kropotkin]] and blended their philosophies together in her own, as shown in books of hers such as ''Anarchism And Other Essays''.<ref>Emma Goldman, ''Anarchism and Other Essays'', p. 50.</ref>
===The American traditions===
{{see also|Anarchism in the United States}}
[[Image:Henry David Thoreau.jpg|thumb|right|[[Henry David Thoreau]]]]
The American version of individualist anarchism has a strong emphasis on the [[non-aggression principle]] and [[Self-ownership|individual sovereignty]].<ref name="Madison">{{cite journal | author = Madison, Charles A. | year = 1945 | title = Anarchism in the United States | journal = Journal of the History of Ideas | volume = 6 | issue = 1 | pages = 46–66 | doi = 10.2307/2707055 <!--Retrieved from CrossRef by DOI bot-->}}</ref> Some individualist anarchists, such as [[Henry David Thoreau]]<ref>Johnson, Ellwood. ''The Goodly Word: The Puritan Influence in America Literature'', Clements Publishing, 2005, p. 138.</ref><ref>''Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences'', edited by Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, Alvin Saunders Johnson, 1937, p. 12.</ref>, do not speak of economics but simply the right of "disunion" from the state, and foresee the gradual elimination of the state through social evolution. However, most of the individualists are [[market anarchists]], and therefore support provision of defense of the individual and his property being supplied by multiple competing providers in a free market. Their doctrines may be seen as [[classical liberalism]] "taken to the extreme,"<ref>anarchism. Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 21.</ref> stresses the importance of individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, private property or possession, and opposes all monopolies (which they believe can only arise through state intervention<ref>Brooks, Frank H. 1994. The Individualist Anarchists. Transaction Publishers. p.15</ref>).<ref>anarchism. Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 21.</ref>
This may further be broadly divided into those who hold to a labor theory of value and those who do not. Some of the latter are often referred to as "anarcho-capitalists." Those referred to as 'anarcho-capitalists', do not oppose things such as profit, rent, loans or interest. They also do not object to workplace hierarchy or boss-worker economic relationship so long as such relationship is seen as non-coerced or in existence through non-aggression. Among the market anarchists, there is a strong advocacy of [[private property]] in the product of labor, and a competitive free market economy. Unlike [[social anarchist|social(ist) anarchists]], individualists do not advocate the socialization or collectivization of the means or production.
[[Image:Josiah Warren.jpg|thumb|left|[[Josiah Warren]]]]
An early individualist anarchist who was very influential was [[Josiah Warren]], who had participated in a failed collective "utopian socialist" experiment headed by [[Robert Owen]] called "[[New Harmony]]" and came to the conclusion that such a system is inferior to one that respects the "sovereignty<ref name="sovereignty> "Some portion, at least, of those who have attended the public meetings, know that EQUITABLE COMMERCE is founded on a principle exactly opposite to combination; this principle may be called that of Individuality. It leaves every one in undisturbed possession of his or her natural and proper sovereignty over its own person, time, property and responsibilities; & no one is acquired or expected to surrender any "portion" of his natural liberty by joining any society whatever; nor to become in any way responsible for the acts or sentiments of any one but himself; nor is there any arrangement by which even the whole body can exercise any government over the person, time property or responsibility of a single individual." - Josiah Warren, [http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/manifesto.shtml Manifesto]</ref> of the individual" and his right to dispose of his property as his own self-interest prescribes. According to Warren, there should be absolutely no community of property; all property should be individualized, and "those who advocated any type of communism with connected property, interests, and responsibilities were doomed to failure because of the individuality of the persons involved in such as experiment."<ref>Butler, Ann Caldwell. [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/4_4/4_4_8.pdf Josiah Warren and the Sovereignty of the Individual]. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IV, No. 4 (Fall 1980)</ref> In a much cited quotation from ''Practical Details'', where he discusses his conclusions in regard to the experiment, he makes a vehement assertion of individual [[negative liberty]]: {{cquote|Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate, WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS.|||[[Josiah Warren]]|''Practical Details'' (1852).<ref>{{cite web |last=McElroy |first=Wendy |authorlink=Wendy McElroy |date=[[2000-01-01]] |title=American Anarchism |work=[[The Independent Institute]] |url=http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=10 |accessdate=2008-07-12 }}</ref>}}
Warren supported private property and trade. However, he held the [[labor theory of value]], and from that he concluded that labor should always trade for an equal amount of labor. He believed that exchanges of unequal amounts of labor, or of goods that required unequal amounts of labor to produce, were always exploitative or unfair to the trader having to sacrifice more of his own labor than the other trader. His motto became "[[Cost the limit of price]]," with "cost" referring to the actual labor that was expended. He opposed what he called "value being made the limit of price," where individuals make exchanges of goods and services based on simply on how much they value what they are purchasing.<ref>Josiah Warren, ''Equitable Commerce'' (1849), p. 10.</ref> To ensure that labor received what he believed to be its [[just price]] - an equal amount of labor - he advocated that a form of money called "[[labor notes]]" be used, which represented labor times. In this way, labor would always be exchanged with an equal amount of labor and goods would always be purchased with an equal amount of labor that was exerted to produce those goods. But, he did not confine this to theory. He put labor notes into exercise in experimental communities which he set up.
====The "Boston Anarchists"====
[[Benjamin Tucker]], and a series of other anarchists centered in the Boston area, were influenced by Warren and also a proponent of this interpretation of the labor theory of value. Tucker believed that it was unjust for individuals to receive greater income while performing less labor than others. Tucker asserted that the solution to bring wages up to be their proper level was for the state to cease interfering in the economy and protecting monopolies from competition. Like Warren, he saw income derived without labor to be exploitative (with the exception of gifts and inheritance<ref>Tucker, Benjamin. State Socialism and Anarchism</ref>). He argued that lending money for interest involved no labor on the part of the lender and therefore saw interest charges as usurious. Rent was also seen as unjust because it involved obtaining an income without labor. To Tucker and most of his contemporary individualists, rent of land is only made possible by government-backed "monopoly" and "privilege" that restricts competition in the marketplace and concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. Tucker contended that private control of land should be supported only if the possessor of that land is using it, otherwise, the possessor would be able to charge rent to others without laboring to produce something. Tucker envisioned an individualist anarchist society as ''"each man reaping the fruits of his labour and no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital....become[ing] a great hive of Anarchistic workers, prosperous and free individuals [combining] to carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle."''<ref>The Individualist Anarchists, p. 276</ref> However, not all of the early individualist anarchists held this philosophy of land ownership. Warren and Lysander Spooner placed no restrictions on occupancy and use for ownership. [[Steven T. Byington]] also opposed Tucker's ideas on occupancy and use requirements for land titles.<ref>Carl Watner. [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_4.pdf Benjamin Tucker and His Periodical], Liberty. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 308</ref>
Tucker and other nineteenth century individualists in his circle supported replacing the security functions of the state with private defense that charges for its services of protecting liberty and property. Benjamin Tucker says: :{{cquote|"defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices"<ref name="tucker">Tucker, Benjamin. "Instead of a Book" (1893)</ref>}}
[[Image:LysanderSpooner.jpg|thumb|left|[[Lysander Spooner]] (1808-1887)]]
He said that anarchism "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders."<ref name="tucker2">Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty October 19, 1891</ref> But Spooner argued that a society with unequal conditions would lead to a society of unfree associations. He argued for the right of everyone to hold land and have access to defence association, arguing that without such, ''"[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will."''<ref>Spooner, Lysander. No Treason</ref> As far as a judicial system, many of these individualists such as Lysander Spooner supported a jury trial with the right of the jury to nullify law, ''"Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter, . . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive perception,"''<ref>Spooner, Lysander. Natural Law</ref> however some such as [[Steven T. Byington]] opposed such a system saying that there is a "need for certainty in some kinds of laws." Byington suggested that adjudications be done by judges "on a business basis" through private arbitration.<ref name="mcelroy">McElroy, Wendy. [http://libertariannation.org/a/f62m1.html A Reconsideration of Trial by Jury], ''Forumulations'', Winter 1998-1999, Free Nation Foundation</ref>
[[Voltairine de Cleyre]], summed up the philosophy by saying that the anarchist individualists "are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State."<ref>de Cleyre, Voltairine. Anarchism. Originally published in ''Free Society'', 13 October 1901. Published in Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre, SUNY Press 2005, p. 224</ref> According to Charles A. Madison, [[Stephen Pearl Andrews]] "spoke for all" of the nineteenth century individualist anarchists when he said, "It is right that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily in the performance of labor."<ref>Madison, Charles A. Anarchism in the United States. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, January 1945, p. 53. He cites The Science of Society, by Stephen Pearl Andrews, New York 1853, 149</ref> Andrews said, "It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly..."<ref>Andrews, Stephen Pearl. The Science of Society. Nichols, 1854. p. 211</ref> For Andrews, to be paid justly was to be paid according to the "Cost Principle," which held that individuals should be paid according to the amount of labor they exert. To simplify this process, he, after Josiah Warren, advocated an economy that uses "labor notes." Labor notes are money marked in labor hours (adjusted for different types of labor based on their difficulty or repugnance). In this way, it is the amount, difficulty, and danger of labor that determines the pay of the employee, rather than the worth of the labor in the eyes of the employer.<ref>explained in The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews. Nichols, 1854. pp. 186-214</ref>
In regard to [[intellectual property]] there were varying opinions. "Spooner favored intellectual property laws, [[James L. Walker]] ("Tak Kak") opposed them, and others such as Tucker took an intermediate position that copyrights are legitimate only if created by contract."<ref>Review by Edward P. Stringham of The Debates if ''Liberty'': An Overview of Individualist Anrachism, 1881-1908. The Independent Review. VOLUME IX, NUMBER 1, SUMMER 2004, p. 144 [http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/Stringham.DebatesOfLiberty.pdf]</ref> Spooner's reasoning was that ideas are the product of "intellectual labor" and therefore private property.<ref>Spooner, Lysander. [http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm The Law of Intellectual Property: or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas.], Chaper 1, Section VI.</ref>
Some of the American individualist anarchists later in this era, such as Benjamin Tucker, abandoned this form of anarchism and converted to Stirner's [[Egoism]]. Rejecting the idea of moral rights, Tucker said that there were only two rights, "the right of might" and "the right of contract." He also said, after converting to Egoist individualism, "In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off....Man's only right to land is his might over it."<ref>Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 350</ref>
Most early individualist anarchists considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists… [who see] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism."'<ref>Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 107 and p. 104)</ref> These early individualist anarchists, however, defined "capitalism" as the state-maintained monopolization of capital.<ref>Schwartzman, Jack. Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth-Century American Anarchists. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 2003). p. 325</ref> Nevertheless, the early individualist anarchists did object to the profit-making aspect of capitalism, believing under the labor theory of value that making profit through capital was exploitative.<ref>McElroy, Wendy. 2000. American Anarchism. The Independent Institute.</ref> But, they would not forcibly prevent profit making, believing it to be freedom of contract. They simply thought that profit would be eliminated through competition if the state did not protect monopolies. Some of their descendents,<ref>Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 103)</ref> such as anarcho-capitalists,<ref>Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 103)</ref> do not agree with this prediction, as they believe labor theories of value to be fallacious and do not have an objection to profit regardless.
====Anarcho-capitalism====
{{main|Anarcho-capitalism}}[[Image:Murray Rothbard.jpg|thumb|left|(Rothbard circa 1955).]]
19th century individualist anarchists espoused the [[labor theory of value]]. Some believe that the modern movement of anarcho-capitalism is the result of simply removing the labor theory of value from ideas of the 19th century American individualist anarchists: "Their successors today, such as Murray Rothbard, having abandoned the labor theory of value, describe themselves as [[anarcho-capitalists]]."<ref name="outhwaite">Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, [[Blackwell Publishing]], 2003, p. 13</ref> As economic theory changed, the popularity of the labor theory of [[classical economics]] was superseded by the [[subjective theory of value]] of [[neo-classical economics]]. According to [[Kevin Carson]] (himself a [[Mutualism (economic theory)|mutualist]]), "most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics."<ref name="carson"/>
[[Murray Rothbard]], a student of [[Ludwig von Mises]], combined the [[Austrian school]] economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.<ref>Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 0-631-17944-5, p. 290</ref> Rothbard said: {{cquote|Lysander Spooner and Benjamin T. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy they left to political philosophy...There is, in the body of thought known as '[[Austrian economics]]', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social [[Weltanschauung]]. But to do this, they must throw out the worthless excess baggage of money-crankism and reconsider the nature and justification of the economic categories of interest, rent and profit.<ref name="Spooner-Tucker Doctrine">[http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View]</ref>}}
Anarcho-capitalists claim that in an anarcho-capitalist society no authority would prohibit anyone from providing, through the [[free market]], services traditionally provided by state [[monopoly]] such as police, courts, and defense. Unlike the nineteenth century individualist anarchists,<ref name="carson">{{cite book | last = Carson | first = Kevin |authorlink=Kevin Carson | title = Studies in Mutualist Political Economy | publisher = BookSurge Publishing | chapter=Preface |chapterurl=http://www.mutualist.org/id112.html | year = 2007 | isbn = 1419658697 }}</ref> they do not believe that there is anything unjust about individuals receiving more income with laboring less. As opposed to advocating "labor for labor" trade, as advocated by Tucker and others, they support trade "on the basis of value for value."<ref>[[Karl Hess]] in [http://fare.tunes.org/books/Hess/dop.html ''The Death of Politics''], 1969.</ref> Moreover, unlike Tucker, they do not see any reason why labor costs would match up in a free market in the first place (economics inclined anarcho-capitalists believe that prices correspond to [[marginal utility]] rather than labor). Anarcho-capitalism does not believe that laissez-faire would cause profit to disappear, nor does it consider [[profit]], rent, interest to be exploitative but natural and beneficial.<ref name="rothbard">Rothbard, Murray. The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View]</ref> Rothbard holds that land can only become property by using or occupying it (he does not require that land be in continual use to remain owned), and that after this it can only legitimately change hands by trade or gift.<ref name="rothbard2" >Rothbard, Murray (1969) ''[http://mises.org/journals/lf/1969/1969_06_15.pdf Consfiscation and the Homestead Principle]'' The Libertatian Forum Vol. I, No. VI (June 15, 1969) Retrieved [[5 August]] [[2006]]</ref> Anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contract to be employees of others, whichever they prefer. David Friedman has expressed preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed."<ref>Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Harper & Row. pp. 144-145 "Instead of corporation there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces."</ref> Anarcho-capitalism's leading proponents are [[Murray Rothbard]] and [[David D. Friedman]] and it has been influenced by non-anarchist [[Libertarianism|libertarians]] such as [[Frederic Bastiat]] and [[Robert Nozick]], and also by [[Ayn Rand]] (although she rejected libertarianism<ref>[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians The Ayn Rand Institute: Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and anarchism<ref>[http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html Anarchism — Ayn Rand Lexicon<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>).
Rothbard wrote, {{cquote| I am...strongly tempted to call myself an 'individualist anarchist', except for the fact that Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences. }} Though anarcho-capitalism has been regarded as a form of individualist anarchism,<ref name="accounts">
* Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, ''The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought'', W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
* Bottomore, Tom. '' Dictionary of Marxist Thought'', ''Anarchism'' entry, 1991.
* Barry, Norman. ''Modern Political Theory'', 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
* Adams, Ian. ''Political Ideology Today'', Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
* Grant, Moyra. ''Key Ideas in Politics'', Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
* Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green'', City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
* [[Paul Avrich|Avrich, Paul]]. ''Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
* Tormey, Simon. ''Anti-Capitalism'', One World, 2004. pp. 118-119
* [[Ralph Raico|Raico, Ralph]]. ''Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century'', Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
* Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4
* Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61
* Offer, John. ''Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments'', Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243</ref> some writers, particularly anarcho-communists<ref>Jainendra, Jha. 2002. "Anarchism". ''Encyclopedia of Teaching of Civics and Political Science''. p. 52. Anmol Publications.</ref>, deny that it is a form of anarchism,<ref>
* K, David. "What is Anarchism?" BASTARD Press (2005)
* Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible, London: Fontana Press, 1992 (ISBN 0 00 686245 4) Chapter 38
* MacSaorsa, Iain. "Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?" SPUNK Press (archive)
* Wells, Sam. "Anarcho-Capitalism is Not Anarchism, and Political Competition is Not Economic Competition" Frontlines 1 (January 1979) </ref> or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism.<ref>
* Peikoff, Leonard. 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' Dutton Adult (1991) Chapter "Government"
* Doyle, Kevin. 'Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias' New York: Lexington Books, (2002) p.447-8
* Sheehan, Seán M. 'Anarchism' Reaktion Books, 2003 p. 17
* Kelsen, Hans. The Communist Theory of Law. Wm. S. Hein Publishing (1988) p. 110
* Egbert. Tellegen, Maarten. Wolsink 'Society and Its Environment: an introduction' Routledge (1998) p. 64
* Jones, James 'The Merry Month of May' Akashic Books (2004) p. 37-38
* Sparks, Chris. Isaacs, Stuart 'Political Theorists in Context' Routledge (2004) p. 238
* Bookchin, Murray. 'Post-Scarcity Anarchism' AK Press (2004) p. 37
* Berkman, Alexander. 'Life of an Anarchist' Seven Stories Press (2005) p. 268</ref>
====Agorism====
{{main|Agorism}}
Agorism is a radical [[Left-libertarianism|left-libertarian]]{{ref label|D|δ|none}} form of anarchism, developed from anarcho-capitalism in the late 20th-century by [[Samuel Edward Konkin III]] (a.k.a. SEK3). The goal of agorists is a society in which all "[[Voluntaryism|relations between people are voluntary exchanges]] — a [[free market]]."<ref name="newlibman">Konkin, Samuel Edward. [http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf New Libertarian Manifesto]</ref> Agorists are [[propertarian]] [[market anarchism|market anarchists]] who consider that property rights are [[natural right]]s deriving from the primary right of self-ownership and are not opposed in principle to collectively held property if individual owners of the property consent to collective ownership by contract or other voluntary mutual agreement. However, Agorists are divided on the question of [[intellectual property]] rights.{{ref label|E|δ|none}}
Agorists consider their ideas to be an evolution and superation of those of [[Murray Rothbard]]; Konkin described agorists as "strict Rothbardians…and even more Rothbardian than Rothbard."<ref> [http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/software/konkin-interview.html "Interview With Samuel Edward Konkin III"]</ref> The characteristic distinguishing it from other forms of market anarchism is its strategic emphasis on "counter-economics" - untaxed "black" market activity. Agorism advocates achieving a [[Market anarchism|market anarchist]] society through [[advocacy]] and growth of the [[underground economy]] or "[[black market]]" — the "counter-economy" as Konkin put it. This process is intended to continue until the State's perceived moral authority and outright power have been so thoroughly undermined that revolutionary market anarchist [[Private defense agency|legal and security enterprises]] are able to arise from underground and ultimately suppress government as a criminal activity. In this sense, agorism is "revolutionary [[market anarchism]]".<ref>''Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.'' [http://www.agorism.info/ Agorism.info]</ref>
==Criticisms==
[[Image:George bernard shaw.jpg|thumb|125px|right|George Bernard Shaw expressed doubts about the [[distribution of wealth]] under individualist anarchism.]]
{{see also|Criticisms of anarchism}}
Prior to abandoning anarchism, libertarian socialist [[Murray Bookchin]] criticized individualist anarchism for its opposition to [[democracy]] and its embrace of "[[lifestyle anarchism|lifestylism]]" at the expense of [[class struggle]].<ref>{{cite book | last = Bookchin | first = Murray | title = [[Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism]] | publisher = [[AK Press]] | location = Stirling | year = 1995 | isbn = 9781873176832 }}</ref> Bookchin claimed that individualist anarchism supports only [[negative liberty]] and rejects the idea of [[positive liberty]].<ref>Bookchin, Murray. "Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism". ''Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993-1998''. [[AK Press]], 1999, p. 155</ref> Anarcho-communist [[Albert Meltzer]] proposed that individualist anarchism differs radically from revolutionary anarchism, and it "is sometimes too readily conceded 'that this is, after all, anarchism'." He claimed that Benjamin Tucker's acceptance of the use of a private police force (including to break up violent strikes to protect the "employer's 'freedom'") is contradictory to the definition of anarchism as "no government."<ref>[[Albert Meltzer|Meltzer, Albert]]. ''Anarchism: Arguments For and Against''. AK Press, 2000. pp. 114-115</ref> Meltzer opposed [[anarcho-capitalism]] for similar reasons, arguing that since it supports "private armies", it actually supports a "limited State." He contends that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of countering it."<ref>Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press, 2000. p 50</ref>
According to Gareth Griffith, [[George Bernard Shaw]] initially had flirtations with individualist anarchism but came to the conclusion that it was "the negation of socialism, and is, in fact, unsocialism carried as near to its logical conclusion as any sane man dare carry it." Shaw's argument was that even if wealth was initially distributed equally, the degree of ''[[laissez-faire]]'' advocated by Benjamin Tucker would result in the distribution of wealth becoming unequal because it would permit private appropriation and accumulation.<ref>Griffith, Gareth. ''Socialism and Superior Brain: The Political Thought of George Bernard Shaw''. Routledge (UK). 1993. p. 310</ref> Individualist anarchists do not consider equal wealth distribution a goal. Tucker explained, "If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living."<ref>Tucker, Benjamin. Economic Rent.</ref>
==Related articles==
{{Anarchism portal}}
{{multicol}}
;General
* [[Tax resistance]]
{{multicol-break}}
;People
* [[Joseph Labadie]]
* [[Clarence Lee Swartz]]
* [[Victor Yarros]]
{{multicol-end}}
==Footnotes==
<sup>'''α'''</sup>{{note label|A|α|none}} The term "individualist anarchism" is often used as a classificatory term, but in very different ways. Some sources, such as [[An Anarchist FAQ]] use the classification "[[social anarchism]] / individualist anarchism". Some see individualist anarchism as distinctly non-socialist, and use the classification "socialist anarchism / individualist anarchism" accordingly.<ref>[[Geoffrey Ostergaard|Ostergaard, Geoffrey]]. "Anarchism". ''The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought''. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.</ref> Other classifications include "mutualist/communal" anarchism.<ref>[[Kevin A. Carson|Carson, Kevin]], [http://www.mutualist.org/id24.html "A Mutualist FAQ"].</ref><br />
<sup>'''β'''</sup>{{note label|B|β|none}} Michael Freeden identifies four broad [[typology|types]] of individualist anarchism. He says the first is the type associated with [[William Godwin]] that advocates [[self-government]] with a "progressive [[rationalism]] that included benevolence to others." The second type is the amoral self-serving rationality of [[Egoism]], as most associated with [[Max Stirner]]. The third type is "found in [[Herbert Spencer]]'s early predictions, and in that of some of his disciples such as [[Wordsworth Donisthorpe|Donisthorpe]], foreseeing the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution." The fourth type retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of market relationships.<ref>Freeden, Micheal. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019829414X. pp. 313-314</ref><br />
<sup>'''γ'''</sup>{{note label|C|γ|none}}See, for example, the Winter 2006 issue of the ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'', dedicated to reviews of Kevin Carson's ''Studies in Mutualist Political Economy.'' Mutualists compose one bloc, along with agorists and geo-libertarians, in the recently formed Alliance of the Libertarian Left.<br />
<sup>'''δ'''</sup>{{note label|D|δ|none}}Though this term is non-standard usage – by "left", agorists mean revolutionary rather than [[socialist]].<br />
<sup>'''ε'''</sup>{{note label|E|ε|none}}Konkin wrote the article [http://users.aol.com/vlntryst/wn20.html "Copywrongs"]in opposition to the concept and Schulman countered SEK3's arguments in [http://www.pulpless.com/bp21samp/logorite.html "Informational Property: Logorights."]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
==External links==
*[http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774059303/ {{PAGENAME}}] at Government and Politics Research Guide
* [http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/ Individualist-Anarchist.Net]
** [http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/resources.html ''Individualist Anarchist Resources'']
* [http://all-left.net/ The Alliance of the Libertarian Left]
*[http://www.andrewrogers.net/ancap/an-cap-intro.htm "An Introduction to Individualist Anarchism"] by Andrew Rogers
* [http://www.wendymcelroy.com/topics.html Articles by Wendy McElroy about Individualist Anarchism]
[[Category:Political theories]]
[[Category:Individualist anarchism]]
[[ca:Anarcoindividualisme]]
[[da:Individualistisk anarkisme]]
[[de:Individualistischer Anarchismus]]
[[et:Individualistlik anarhism]]
[[es:Anarquismo individualista]]
[[eo:Individuisma anarkiismo]]
[[fr:Anarchisme individualiste]]
[[gl:Anarquismo individualista]]
[[is:Stjórnlaus einstaklingshyggja]]
[[it:Anarco-individualismo]]
[[he:אנרכיזם אינדיבידואליסטי]]
[[nl:Individualistisch anarchisme]]
[[pl:Anarchizm indywidualistyczny]]
[[pt:Anarquismo individualista]]
[[ro:Anarho-individualism]]
[[sv:Individualanarkism]]
[[tr:Bireyci anarşizm]]
[[zh:個人無政府主義]]