Anarchism in the United States

American Individualist Anarchism is an anarchist philosophical tradition that has a strong emphasis on sovereignty of the individual and is generally opposed to collectivism. It is the predominant school of individualist anarchism, with major thinkers such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner and Josiah Warren belonging to this camp.

The early individualists adhered to a labor theory of value and therefore considered profit in trade to be exploitation made possible by coercive "monopolies," backed or created by the state, which reduce competition. American individualists oppose the initiation of coercion and fraud, believing that force should be reserved for defense.

American individualist anarchism declined as a movement in the early 20th century as statist socialism became more popular among the masses and the fight against fascism and two world wars overshadowed the fight for individual liberty.

Overview

File:JosiahWarren.jpg

Josiah Warren was the first known American anarchist

Early individualist anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th century in America (historically called "Boston anarchism" at times, often derogatorily) included Josiah Warren, Ezra Heywood, Joshua K. Ingalls, William B. Greene, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, John William Lloyd, Henry Bool, Steven T. Byington, Victor Yarros, Joseph Labadie, Laurance Labadie, Henry Appleton, Clarence Lee Swartz, and Albert Jay Nock.

Contemporary theorists of the same philosophical strain include Joe Peacott, Larry Gambone, Wendy McElroy, and Kevin Carson.

The origin of the American tradition draws heavily on Josiah Warren and France's Pierre Proudhon, though both working without association or apparent knowledge of the other.

The tradition bases its philosophy on what Warren called the "Sovereignty of the Individual", which holds that an individual has the exclusive right to dominion over his own body, however he sees fit, against the claims of others. As a corollary to this, the individualists held that all individuals own the produce of their labor individually. This contrasts with anarcho-communism, where the produce of an individual does not become his property but is pooled collectively with the community. It also differs from capitalism, where it is not considered unethical for an individual to be paid less than the "full produce" of his labor, thereby profiting the purchaser of that labor or its produce.

Since World War II, the tradition of individualist anarchist movement has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism.

Property

Private property rights for American individualists include a right to own the means of production. There is an important exception: most individualist anarchists hold that land cannot be looked at as property in the same way that the products of labor can be. In this they joined many of the liberals who came before them. For example, Thomas Jefferson says: "Whenever there is any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural rights. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

In a similar vein, most individualists believe that unused land should not be restricted from those who would like to use it (Warren and Andrews are notable exceptions). They maintain that titles to land should not be granted unless it is occupied or in use, since untransformed land is not the product of labor. However, they take this a step further in advocating that title should only be granted to the individual occupying or using the property, as this ensures that an individual cannot charge rent (being paid without laboring). Unused land is not considered to be the collective property of the community --it is simply unowned, and therefore no permission is needed to put it to private use and no compensation is due to the community upon its use (contrast geoanarchism). Benjamin Tucker said: "Anarchism holds that land belongs not to the people but the occupant and user..." (Liberty X May 19 1894). Thus, most of these 19th century individualist anarchists opposed the Lockean conception of property in land. However, there are notable exceptions such as Lysander Spooner.

The produce of cultivating land is regarded as private property, as it is a result of labor. Maintaining that the value of anything is the amount of labor that was performed to produce or acquire it (see the labor theory of value), individualists assert that equal amounts of labor should therefore be paid equal wages. Or, in other words, an individual who labors for another should be always be paid his "full produce," rather than an employer who was labored less retaining a portion as profit.

State Monopoly

Both classical and modern individualist anarchists hold that capital is concentrated in the hands of a privileged few as a result of government restrictions on entering the banking business and issuing currency, as well as government enforcement of land titles that are not in use. They believed that if any individual were allowed to issue and lend his own currency and enter into the banking business, without requiring charters from government, competition would be so prevalent that the possibility of profiting through lending capital would become nearly non-existent (see free banking). They supported a restricted form of private ownership of capital, but opposed the coercive government privilege that they believed keeps capital concentrated in the hands of a few. They did not aim for strict equality of wealth, but rather equality of freedom and of opportunity. Individualist anarchist Laurance Labadie wrote: "In a world where inequality of ability is inevitable, anarchists do not sanction any attempt to produce equality by artificial or authoritarian means. The only equality they posit and will strive their utmost to defend is the equality of opportunity. This necessitates the maximum amount of freedom for each individual. This will not necessarily result in equality of incomes or of wealth but will result in returns proportionate to services rendered" (Anarchism Applied to Economics, Labadie's emphasis).

Individualism vs. State Socialism

Benjamin Tucker wrote in State Socialism and Anarchism: "Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx on a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government-protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren and Proudhon in a path which ends in making the individual everything and the government nothing....though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few."

Some of the 19th century individual anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, referred to their philosophy as "Anarchistic Socialism" [2] Some even participated in the International Workingmen's Association, or "First International." However, Tucker does not define socialism in terms of abolition of private property or collective ownership of the means of production as it is generally defined today; to him "socialism" was simply a prescriptive vision of society. Tucker said that the "bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labor should be put in possession of its own." In other words, that workers should own the full product of their labor.

In contrast to anarcho-communism

Individualist anarchists regard the most foundational differences between their economic philosophy (mutualism) and anarcho-communism to be the issue over the ownership of the produce of labor. Individualists believe that the produce of labor should be regarded as property of the individual and that wages should be paid for labor, though they generally argued in favor of equal wages for equal labor. Anarcho-communists oppose individual ownership and believe that the produce of labor should be owned by a collective and that wages should be abolished. In anarcho-communism, one who labors does not individually own his produce, but may use as much as he needs, being ethically obliged to share surplus production with others who need it. In individualist anarchism, the individual privately owns his produce, having absolute dominion over it. This includes means of production that are themselves produced by labor such as tools and machines. To some degree, one may accumulate the produce of labor and keep it from those who may "need" it, or sell it. Where the distribution of goods and services in anarcho-communism can been seen as "to each according to his needs," in individualist anarchism distribution is "to each according to his labor." Proudhon, who was influential on the Americans through Benjamin Tucker, said: "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained." In anarcho-communism wealth would naturally be evenly distributed, as it is collectively owned. In individualist anarchism, wealth distribution is more uneven, as wealth production would vary among individuals. Benjamin Tucker explicitly supported the social equality of socialism[3], but held that a moderate degree of wealth disparity is the natural result of liberty: "... there are people who say: 'We will have no liberty, for we must have absolute equality. I am not of them. 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." Among individualist anarchists, anarcho-communism was not universally accepted as being a valid form of anarchism. For example, Victor Yarros says "no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no "scientific" reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism"

American Individualist Anarchists

Josiah Warren

File:JosiahWarrenprofile.jpg

Josiah Warren

Main article: Josiah Warren

Josiah Warren is generally considered to be the first individualist anarchist in the American tradition. He also issued what some believe to be the first anarchist periodical ever published, called The Peaceful Revolutionist in 1833. Warren had participated in a failed collectivist experiment headed by Robert Owen called "New Harmony" and came to the conclusion that such a system is inferior to one where individualism and private property is allowed. In Practical Details he expresses his conclusions in regard to this collectivist experiment.

In a quote from that text that illustrates his radical individualism, he makes a vehement assertion of individual negative liberty: "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" (Tucker's capitalization).

In True Civilization Warren equates "Sovereignty of the Individual" with the Declaration of Independence's assertion of the INALIENABLE right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." He claims that an person's "instinct" to sovereignty "cannot be alienated or separated from that organism," and that therefore, "this instinct being INVOLUNTARY, every one has the same absolute right to its exercise that he has to his complexion or the forms of his features, to any extent, not disturbing another." Beyond this, Warren coined the phrase, "cost the limit of price", to refer to his interpretation of the labor theory of value.

The labor theory holds that the value of a commodity is equal to the amount of labor required to produce or acquire it. From this, Warren concluded that it was unethical to charge a higher price for a commodity than the cost incurred in producing, acquiring, and bringing it to market. He called his normative maxim "Cost the limit of price." In addition, according to Warren, if labor is the ultimate source of value then equal amounts of labor from two different individuals are of equal value.

In 1827, Warren put his theories into practice by starting a business called the Cincinnati Time Store where goods were trade was facilitated by private currency backed by labor. This labor-note experiment is considered to be the first practice of the economic theory of mutualism, which Pierre-Joseph Proudhon later theorized. Warren and Proudhon developed similar philosophies though they had worked without association or apparent knowledge of the each other. Benjamin Tucker says that the idea that profit is exploitative due to its violation of the labor theory of value "was Proudhon's position before it was Marx's, and Josiah Warren's before it was Proudhon's" (Liberty or Authority)."

Warren, like all the American individualists that followed, is a strong supporter of the right of individuals to retain the product of their labor, including means of production, as private property. He had early on stated opposition to the state granting land titles believing it to create special privileges and monopoly, but, as indicated later in Equitable Commerce, he accepted a right to own, purchase, and sell land. But, he advocated that that it be sold without profit. This position was shared by fellow anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews. It was not until later that other individualist anarchists began opposing ownership of land itself and advocated occupation and use .

Warren says that "by dispensing with government we shake off the greatest invader of human rights" (Equitable Commerce). James J. Martin says, in Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America: "The fundamental structure of American anarchism is without doubt based upon the social and economic experiments and writings of Josiah Warren." The writings of later individualists speak of him with noticeable reverence.

Stephen Pearl Andrews

Stephen Pearl Andrews

Stephen Pearl Andrews was an individualist anarchist and close associate of Josiah Warren. Andrews was formerly associated with the Fourierist movement, but converted to radical individualismafter becoming acquainted with the work of Warren. Like Warren, he held the principle of "individual sovereignty" as being of paramount importance.

Andrews said that when individuals act in order to serve their own self-interest, they incidentally contribute to the well-being of others. He maintained that it is a "mistake" to create a "state, church or public morality" that individuals must serve rather than pursuing their own happiness. In Love, Marriage and Divorce, and the Sovereignty of the Individual he says: "Give up...the search after the remedy for the evils of government in more government. The road lies just the other way--toward individualism and freedom from all government...Nature made individuals, not nations; and while nations exist at all, the liberties of the individual must perish."

Warren and Andrews established the individualist anarchist colony called "Modern Times" on Long Island, NY. In tribute to Andrews, Benjamin Tucker said: "Anarchist especially will ever remember and honor him because he has left behind him the ablest English book ever written in defense of Anarchist principles" (Liberty, III, 2).

William B. Greene

William B. Greene

William B. Greene did not become a full-fledged anarchist until the last ten years of his life, however, being involved with the movement for much longer he was instrumental in developing the economic ideas of the individualists. Whereas Warren provided the basis of the individualists' economics in asserting "Cost the limit of price," Greene is best known for expanding on this by being instrumental in bringing the idea of a "mutual bank" to American anarchism (though, Spooner had previously developed mutualist banking ideas in his writings, working without association with the other anarchists until later). He is sometimes called the "American Proudhon," for the similarities of his mutualist banking ideas with those of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

His famous and widely reprinted is entitled Mutual Banking. Benjamin Tucker said: "I am indebted to Col. Greene's Mutual Banking more than to any other single publication for such knowledge as I have of the principles of finance--the most compact, satisfactory, keen and clear treatise upon mutual money extant" (Liberty VI, 1).

Greene saw a great need for banks, holding that they perform the service of being a medium so that those with capital to spare could provide it to those with a need for capital. He believed that the requirement that one must obtain permission from government (charter) to establish a bank severely thwarted the meeting of those with mutual interests by reducing the number of banks that would otherwise arise. Greene acknowledged that rates are set by supply and demand, but believed that if truly free competition were allowed in lending, interest rates would seek a level that would accord with the "natural rate," which he believed would be one that would not accommodate the possibility of profit.

He proposed that these mutual banks should be an agreement among individuals to monetize any property of their choice, and severely criticized government enforcement of government-issued money as "legal tender" in payment of debts. Greene and other notable individuals campaigned assiduously to obtain a government charter, but were denied permission to establish a mutual bank. This only emboldened the individualist anarchists opposition to the "banking monopoly."

Ezra Heywood

Ezra Heywood was another individualist anarchist influenced by Warren, who was an ardent slavery abolitionist and feminist. He wrote one of the first feminist anarchist essays. Heywood saw what he believed to be a disproportionate concentration of capital in the hands of a few as the result of a selective extension of government-backed privileges to certain individuals and organizations.

He said: "Government is a northeast wind, drifting property into a few aristocratic heaps, at the expense of altogether too much democratic bare ground. Through cunning legislation, ... privileged classes are allowed to steal largely according to law."

He believed that there should be no profit in rent of buildings. He did not oppose rent, but believed that if the building was fully paid for that it was improper to charge more than what is necessary for transfer costs, insurance, and repair of deterioriation that occurs during the occupation by the tenant. He even asserted that it may be encumbent on the owner of the building to pay rent to the tenant if the tenant keeps his residency in such a condition that saved it from deterioration if it was otherwise unoccupied. Whereas, Warren, Andrews, and Greene supported ownership of unused land, Heywood believed that title to unused land was a great evil.

This, and several other issues, were a source of conflict with Warren, although they maintained a respectful relationship. Heywood's philosophy was instrumental in furthering individualist anarchist ideas through his extensive pamphleteering and reprinting of works of Warren and Greene.

Benjamin Tucker

Benjamin Tucker

Benjamin Tucker, being influenced by Warren (who he credits as being his "first source of light"), Greene, Heywood, Proudhon's mutualism, and Stirner's egoism, is probably the most famous of the American individualists. Tucker defined anarchism as "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished" (State Socialism and Anarchism).

Like the individualists he was influenced by, he rejected the notion of society being a thing that has rights, insisting that only individuals can have rights. And, like all anarchists, he opposed the governmental practice of democracy, as it allows a majority to decide for a minority. Tucker's main focus, however, was on economics. He opposed profit, believing that it is only made possible by the "suppression or restriction of competition" by government and vast concentration of wealth.

He believed that restriction of competition was accomplished by the establishment of four "monopolies": the banking monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent and copyright monopoly --the most harmful of these, according to him, being the money monopoly. He believed that restrictions on who may enter the banking business and issue currency, as well as protection of unused land, were responsible for wealth being concentrated in the hands of a privileged few.

Though Tucker supported social egalitarianism and solidarity , he made clear his opposition to collectivist notions such as economic egalitarianism, believing unequal wealth distribution to be a natural result of liberty (Economic Rent). Like all anarchists Tucker argued against state socialism, proposing instead that anarchism was based on "stateless" socialism, "The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism." [The Anarchist Reader, p. 150]"

Liberty, published by Benjamin Tucker, was the leading journal of radical individualist thought from 1881-1908

Tucker believed that economic monopolies forced nearly everyone to engage in usury. But, again, he believed this would become impossible with the abolition of the banking monopoly --the "chief sinner" is the State which makes it possible and the "chief usurers" are not ordinary individuals who pursue profit, but those who enjoy the monopoly privileges (Capital, Profits and Interest). Though Tucker regarded the taking of interest to be "usury," he opposed forbidding individuals from taking interest, believing that individuals should be allowed to contract for whatever terms they wish, so long as these contracts were not enforced to the point of causing human suffering or death: "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury" (Liberty I,3). He believed that if everyone were allowed to lend, rather than requiring charters from a government, that the increased competition would result in the practical inability to lend at a profit. "Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital." (State Socialism and Anarchism)

Tucker opposed protection of unused land, asserting that titles should only be granted for land being occupied or used. He believes that private ownership of capital would be more diffused across society if these "monopolies" were broken. This, in turn, would result in increased competition in lending and employment markets, rendering profit-making nearly impossible. Tucker inititially premised his philosophy on natural law. But, by the influence of his reading of Stirner's egiost individualism, he maintained that morality and rights did not exist without contract and that therefore contract, guided by self-interest, is the proper basis of private law. .

Tucker published a periodical called Liberty that was instrumental for the development of individualist anarchist theory. Tucker described anarchists as "unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats." [4] He advocated private defense of individual liberty and private property[5], including the use of "private police" [6].

Tucker said that "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;... and, finally, that the State exceeds all its fellow-monopolists in the extent of its villainy because it enjoys the unique privilege of compelling all people to buy its product whether they want it or not" (Instead of a Book). However, Tucker also argued that defense could be arranged instead, "by voluntary association and cooperation for self-defence." (Individual Liberty)

In his later years, Tucker said, "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism". According to Susan Love Brown, this provided a "shift further illuminated in the 1970's by the anarcho-capitalists."

Lysander Spooner

Lysander Spooner

Lysander Spooner was an individualist anarchist who apparently worked with little association with the other individualists of the time except for brief periods later in his life when he wrote his most noted essays, but came to approximately the same conclusions. In this time, his philosophy evolved from appearing to support a limited role for the state to opposing its existence altogether. Spooner was a staunch advocate of "natural law," maintaining that each individualy has a "natural right" to be free to do as one wishes as long as he refrains from initiating coercion on others or their property.

With this natural law came the right of contract, which Spooner found of extreme importance. He holds that government cannot create law, as law already exists naturally; anything government does that is not in accordance with natural law (coercion) is illegal. Maintaining that government does not exist by contract of every individual it claims to govern, he came to believe that government itself is in violation of natural law, as it finances its activities through taxation of those who have not contracted with it. He rejected the popular idea that a majority, in the case of democracy, can consent on behalf of a minority; as a majority is bound to the same natural law against coercion to which individuals are bound: "...if the majority, however large, or the people enter into a contract of government called a constitution by which they...destroy or invade the natural rights of any person or persons whatsoever, this contract of government is unlawful and void" (The Unconstitutionality of Slavery).

Spooner, like his compatriots, strongly emphasized private property. He wrote that "...the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." He added that there are two ways private property may come about: "first, by simply taking possession of natural wealth, or the productions of nature; and, secondly, by the artificial production of other wealth." (The Law of Intellectual Property).

He asserts that merely by picking a piece of fruit, for example, it becomes private property since labor has been exerted to procure it, and he includes land as property by the application of labor: "A man must take possession of the natural fruits of the earth, and thus make them his property, before he can apply them to the sustenance of his body. He must take possession of land, and thus make it his property, before he can raise a crop from it, or fit it for his residence" (Law of Intellectual Property). Unlike Tucker, Spooner did not have "occupancy and use" restrictions for land --he held that as long as labor has been mixed with the land, property has been created, and it continues to be owned if use is not continuous.

He asserted that it is only by natural resources becoming private property through labor that man is able to rise above the level of a "shivering savage," asserting that "The only way in which ["the wealth of nature"] can be made useful to mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it private property." (Law of Intellectual Property). However, unlike Tucker, he also supported intellectual property rights, maintaining that the ideas of an individual should be considered their private property. He said: "So absolute is an author's right of dominion over his ideas that he may forbid their being communicated even by human voice if he so pleases."

Spooner did not oppose the charging of interest, but merely believed interest rates are kept artificially high by government restrictions on whom may start a bank. He said: "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest are arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor." Spooner's argument is that government enforcing a upper legal limit on interest rates locks out those with modest means from obtaining capital, since the lender will not be willing to lend to them if he cannot set rates that compensate for the increased risk of not being repaid (Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Cure). Spooner also has no opposition to employee/employer arrangements: "And if the laborer own the stone, wood, iron, wool, and cotton, on which he bestows his labor, [he] is the rightful owner of the additional value which his labor gives to those articles. But if he be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors." (The Law of Intellectual Property) However, Spooner did advocate that individuals go into business for themselves so as to relieve themselves of the necessity of profiting employers. And, as indicated in a Letter to Cleveland Spooner, he believed that if capital were freed from restrictive government monopolies that "no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."

Spooner started and operated a private mail delivery business called American Letter Mail Company to compete with the United States Post Office by offering lower rates, but was thwarted by the U.S. Government which enforced the USPS's coercive monopoly. Benjamin Tucker called Spooner "one of the profoundest political philosophers that ever added to the knowledge of mankind" (Liberty VII, 6).

Voltairine de Cleyre

Voltairine de Cleyre

Voltairine de Cleyre was an individualist anarchist for several years before abandoning this label to embrace the philosophy of anarchism without adjectives. In contrasting herself to anarcho-communist Emma Goldman she said: "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." However, de Cleyre was held in high esteem by Goldman, who called her "the most gifted and brilliant anarchist woman America ever produced", and de Cleyre argued in Goldman's defense after Goldman was imprisoned for urging the hungry to expropriate food. In this speech, she condoned a right to take food when hungry but stopped short of advocating it: "I do not give you that advice... not that I do not think one little bit of sensitive human flesh is worth all the property rights in New York City... I say it is your business to decide whether you will starve and freeze in sight of food and clothing, outside of jail, or commit some overt act against the institution of property and take your place beside Timmermann and Goldman." De Cleyre said that the "essential institutions of Commercialism are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference by the State," and that "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism" would exist in individualist anarchy. De Cleyre later abandoned individualism and embraced "anarchism without adjectives", reasoning that: "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom."

Contemporaries

Contemporary American individualist anarchists include Robert Anton Wilson, Joe Peacott, James J. Martin, Kevin Carson, Larry Gambone, and Keith Preston.

Anarcho-capitalism

Main article: Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism differs from traditional individualist anarchism in that it does not accept the labor theory of value. As a result, anarcho-capitalists do not regard profit as exploitative. Also, whereas most of the classical individualists oppose titles to unused land, anarcho-capitalists support it as long as it was acquired by the possessor through labor (in the case of unowned land) or trade --it need not be in continual use to retain title (this is also Lysander Spooner's position on land). Richard Sylvan in his article Anarchism, says that "different types of anarchism will offer different economic theories. Those with a stronger individualistic component will tend to rely not merely upon market or allied exchange arrangements but upon capitalist organization," hence, "anarcho-capitalisms." (Sylvan, Richard Anarchism, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy)

Terminological disputes

The tradition of individualist anarchism that originated in the 1800's is opposed to profit-making, and hence, capitalism as it is commonly defined today. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalism, which has no opposition to profit, is sometimes regarded as a form of individualist anarchism. For example, contemporary individualist anarchist Daniel Burton says that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism, though he states that most individualists today are anti-capitalist Individualist anarchism vs. Anarcho-capitalism. Contemporary individualist in the anti-capitalist tradition, Joe Peacott, argues that individualist anarchism rejects capitalism, but also states that, "the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists" (Individualist Reconsidered). Other individualist anarchists, like Larry Gambone, believe that anarchism itself is incompatible with capitalism. Gambone states, "for anarchists, capitalism is the result of the development of the state and therefore, all capitalism is in one sense, state capitalism." [7] But, Gambone points out that there is a definitional problem. He says that when "classical anarchists" speak of capitalists, they are referring to "those who had gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government" whereas modern free market libertarians refer to capitalism as "free exchange" and oppose "government aided business"; he says that what the libertarians call "mercantilism", which they oppose, is what classical anarchists call "capitalism" (Any Time Now Spring 1998 No. 4). Hence, anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism as the classical anarchists define it. The view that in the absence of a state there could be no capitalism in the sense of profit-making is made by contemporary anti-capitalist individualist anarchists Kevin A. Carson (The Iron Fist...). Anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy calls herself an individualist anarchist, and Italian anarcho-capitalist Guglielmo Piombini regards anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism (Per l'Anarco-Capitalismo). Historian Ralph Raico regards it as "a form of individualist anarchism" (Authentic German Liberalism...). However, historian Peter Sabatini argues that capitalist claims to anarchism are void of meaning ([8]). Individualist anarchist author Iain McKay argues that individualism is essentially anti-capitalist and that anarcho-capitalists claims to the tradition require reading individualist anarchists out of context ([9]). Simon Tormey, in his book Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide, places no anti-capitalist restriction on being an individualist anarchist: "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a 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."

Conflicts within Individualist Anarchism in the United States

There has been much debate on whether individualist anarchism is properly justified in natural law or egoism. Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner based their philosophical system on inalienable natural rights, while others such as Benjamin Tucker believed that rights can only exist by contract. Tucker said: "I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. . . Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence."

Many individualist anarchists oppose the Lockean conception of property in land, which maintains that if an individual mixes his labor with land, it becomes his property even if he ceases using it. It was Benjamin Tucker's position that an individual could only have title to land so long as he continually uses it. Lysander Spooner, however, accepted the Lockean conception and did not require any condition of "occupancy and use." This was a source of some conflict between Tucker and Spooner, with Tucker expressing dissatisfaction with the latter's position on land. (Spooner Vs. Liberty, Carl Watner) Josiah Warren also did not place occupancy and use restrictions on the ownership of land.

See also

• Henry David Thoreau
• Mutualism (economic theory)
• Cincinnati Time Store
• Individualist anarchism
• Liberty (1881-1908)
• Anarchism in the English tradition
• Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
• Labor theory of property

External links

• State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein they differ, Economic Rent and Liberty, Land, and Labor by Benjamin Tucker
• The Boston Anarchists by Henry Appleton
• Bibliographical Essay by James J. Martin from his book Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908
• Benjamin R Tucker & the Champions of Liberty: A Centenary Anthology edited by Edited by Michael E. Coughlin, Charles H. Hamilton and Mark A. Sullivan
• Ingalls, Hanson, and Tucker: Nineteenth Century American Anarchists by Jack Schwartzman
• Manifesto, Plan of the Cincinnati Labor for Labor Store and Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren
• Mutual Banking by William B. Greene
• Uncivil Liberty: An Essay to Show the Injustice and Impolicy of Ruling Woman Without Her Consent (1873) by Ezra Heywood
• The Law of Intellectual Property: or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas. by Lysander Spooner, 1855
• Henry Bool’s Apology for His Jeffersonian Anarchism by Henry Bool, 1901
• Anarchist Socialism and Anarchist-Mutualism by John William Lloyd, contributor to Liberty and one-time individualist anarchist, who tried to reconcile individualist and communist anarchism
• Individualism Reconsidered and An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought by Joe Peacott
• The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege by Kevin A. Carson

• Individualist Anarchist Society of UC Berkeley