Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Individualist anarchism

From Anarchopedia
Revision as of 02:21, 13 December 2004 by millosh (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

In politics, individualist anarchism is a variety of anarchism that emphasises the importance of the individual. Several classical anarchist thinkers, such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Max Stirner, Dora Marsden and Albert Jay Nock, are known as individualist anarchists.

Their works argue for the sovereignty of each individual within their own life. Other such writers include Henry David Thoreau and John Henry Mackay.

Individualist anarchists and private property

Individualist anarchists are claimed as part of their tradition by anarcho-capitalists as well as by libertarian socialists, who criticize differently the works of these authors. In turn, modern individualist anarchists claim many works by anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists as part of their tradition, though without forcibly fully adhering to them.

Libertarian socialists insist that many of these authors, after and including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, rejected essential foundations of capitalism, namely the legalism of private property (as opposed to the mere right to use) and the charging of interest or rent.

Anarcho-capitalists appreciate the emphasis given by these thinkers on individual rights and liberty, and on market-based approaches rather than "collectivism"; they agree with Frederic Bastiat in his responses to Proudhon.

Anarcho-capitalists can think also as well as Max Stirner who is arguably the most philosophically oriented of these individual anarchists, rejected Proudhon's ideas about property as a collective good, but also rejected all kinds of liberalism and the idea of rights to personal properties as an illusion or "ghost", clearly stating that there is no divine right to own anything, you only have what you have and that's it. In Stirner's view there are no moral obligations attached to property, or anything else for that matter. Thus he deems both Proudhon's concept of "individual property as theft" (paraphrased) and the libertarian idea of property as a natural principle as founded in superstitious beliefs. (In this concept he also explicitly included all "immaterial" or "spiritual" posessions, see The Ego and His Own.)

External links

Credits