Individualist anarchism

Individualist anarchism

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. [Josiah Warren, "Equitable Commerce" (1849), p. 10.] 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 [Tucker, Benjamin. State Socialism and Anarchism] ). 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." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 276] 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. [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]

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"Tucker, Benjamin. "Instead of a Book" (1893)] 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."Tucker, Benjamin. Liberty October 19, 1891] 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." [Spooner, Lysander. No Treason] 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," [Spooner, Lysander. Natural Law] 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.McElroy, Wendy. [http://libertariannation.org/a/f62m1.html A Reconsideration of Trial by Jury] , "Forumulations", Winter 1998-1999, Free Nation Foundation]

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." [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] 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." [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] 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..." [Andrews, Stephen Pearl. The Science of Society. Nichols, 1854. p. 211] 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. [explained in The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews. Nichols, 1854. pp. 186-214]

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." [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] ] Spooner's reasoning was that ideas are the product of "intellectual labor" and therefore private property. [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.]

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." [Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 350]

Most early individualist anarchists considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists… [who saw] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism."' [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)] These early individualist anarchists, however, defined "capitalism" as the state-maintained monopolization of capital. [Schwartzman, Jack. Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth-Century American Anarchists. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (November, 2003). p. 325] 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. [McElroy, Wendy. 2000. American Anarchism. The Independent Institute.] 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, [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)] such as anarcho-capitalists, [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)] 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.

However, the individualist branch of Tucker did not consider themselves to be capitalistic, claiming "not Socialist Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism." [ [Tucker, Liberty, no. 129] ] John Beverly Johnson argued " [there] are two kinds of land ownership, proprietorship or property, by which the owner is absolute lord of the land, to use it or to hold it out of use, as it may please him; and possession, by which he is secure in the tenure of land which he uses and occupies, but has no claim upon it at all if he ceases to use it." [Patterns of Anarchy, p. 272?] They believe that markets should be operated freely by property-owning workers, such as illustrated in his debate with Auberon Herbert, "When we come to the question of the ethical basis of property, Mr. Herbert refers us to 'the open market'. But this is an evasion. The question is not whether we should be able to sell or acquire 'in the open market' anything which we rightfully possess, but how we come into rightful possession." [ [Liberty, no. 172, p. 7] ]

By the turn of the 20th century, the heyday of individualist anarchism had passed, [Avrich, Paul. 2006. "Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America". AK Press. p. 6] Contemporary individualist anarchist Wendy McElroy suggests that the reason for the decline of individualist anarchism by the end of the twentieth century is that that the movement "hindered itself" and became "stagnant" by clinging to the labor theory of value and refusing to "incorporate the economic theories that were rising within other branches of Individualist thought, theories such as marginal utility." [McElroy, Wendy. The Debates of Liberty. Lexington Books, 2003, p. 11] Incorporation of these theories into individualist anarchism was not to occur until after the middle of the next century by Murray Rothbard, thus spurring a revival of anarchism of the individualist persuasion.

Anarcho-capitalism

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."Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, p. 13] 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 mutualist), "most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics."

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. [Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 0-631-17944-5, p. 290] 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. [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View] ]

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,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 ] 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." [Karl Hess in [http://fare.tunes.org/books/Hess/dop.html "The Death of Politics"] , 1969.] 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.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] ] 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.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] 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." [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."] Anarcho-capitalism's leading proponents are Murray Rothbard and David D. Friedman and it has been influenced by non-anarchist libertarians such as Frederic Bastiat and Robert Nozick, and also by Ayn Rand (although she rejected libertarianism [ [http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians The Ayn Rand Institute: Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism ] ] and anarchism [ [http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html Anarchismndash Ayn Rand Lexicon ] ] ).

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,
* Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, "The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought", W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
* 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.
* 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
* 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] some writers, particularly anarcho-communists [Jainendra, Jha. 2002. "Anarchism". "Encyclopedia of Teaching of Civics and Political Science". p. 52. Anmol Publications.] , deny that it is a form of anarchism, [
* 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) ] or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism. [
* 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]

Agorism

Agorism is a radical left-libertarianref 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 "relations between people are voluntary exchanges – a free market."cite book |last=Konkin III |first=Samuel Edward |authorlink=Samuel Edward Konkin III |title=New Libertarian Manifesto |origdate=1980 |publisher=KoPubCo |url=http://invisiblemolotov.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/new_libertarian_manifesto.pdf |year=2006 |isbn=0977764923 ] Agorists are propertarian market anarchists who consider that property rights are natural rights 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." [ [http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/software/konkin-interview.html "Interview With Samuel Edward Konkin III"] ] 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 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 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". ["Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism." [http://www.agorism.info/ Agorism.info] ]

Criticisms

Prior to abandoning anarchism, libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchism for its opposition to democracy and its embrace of "lifestylism" at the expense of class struggle. [cite book |last=Bookchin |first=Murray |title=Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism |publisher=AK Press |location=Stirling |year=1995 |isbn=9781873176832 ] Bookchin claimed that individualist anarchism supports only negative liberty and rejects the idea of positive liberty. [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] 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." [Meltzer, Albert. "Anarchism: Arguments For and Against". AK Press, 2000. pp. 114-115] 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." [Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press, 2000. p 50]

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. [Griffith, Gareth. "Socialism and Superior Brain: The Political Thought of George Bernard Shaw". Routledge (UK). 1993. p. 310] According to Carlotta Anderson, American individualist anarchists accept that free competition results in unequal wealth distribution, but they "do not see that as an injustice." [Anderson, Carlotta R. All-American Anarchist: Joseph A. Labadie and the Labor Movement, Wayne State University Press, 1998, p. 250] 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." [Tucker, Benjamin. Economic Rent.]

ee also

* Tax resistance

Footnotes

^αnote 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. [Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". "The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought". Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.] Other classifications include "mutualist/communal" anarchism. [Carson, Kevin, [http://www.mutualist.org/id24.html "A Mutualist FAQ"] .]
^βnote label|B|β|none Michael Freeden identifies four broad 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 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. [Freeden, Micheal. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019829414X. pp. 313-314]
^γnote label|C|γ|noneSee, 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.
^δnote label|D|δ|noneThough this term is non-standard usage – by "left", agorists mean "left" in the general sense used by left-libertarians, as defined by Roderick T. Long, as "... an integration, or I’d argue, a reintegration of libertarianism with concerns that are traditionally thought of as being concerns of the left. That includes concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality." [Long, Roderick. T. [http://en.liberalis.pl/2008/01/04/interview-with-roderick-long/ An Interview With Roderick Long] ]
^εnote label|E|ε|noneKonkin 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."]
^ζnote label|F|ζ|none Individualist anarchism is also known by the terms "anarchist individualism", "anarcho-individualism", "individualistic anarchism", "libertarian anarchism", [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)] "anarcho-libertarianism",cite book|title=Libertarianism Defended|last=Machan|first=T.R.|year=2006|publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|pages=pages=245] cite book|title=Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/libertarian Debate|last=Carey|first=G.W.|year=1984|publisher=University Press of America] "anarchist libertarianism"cite book|title=Libertarianism Defended|last=Machan|first=T.R.|year=2006|publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|pages=pages=257] and "anarchistic libertarianism".cite journal|title=The Capitalist Alternative: An Introduction to Neo-Austrian Economics|last=Harcourt|first=GC|publisher=JSTOR]

References

External links

* [http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774059303/ Individualist anarchism] 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]