Anarchism as Merely Nineteenth Century Liberalism Taken to Its Logical Extreme

1002 Words3 Pages

Anarchism as Merely Nineteenth Century Liberalism Taken to Its Logical Extreme

- Belief in primacy of the individual, freedom (negative freedom),

democracy, free-market.

It can be argued that INDIVIDUALIST anarchism is classical liberalism

to its logical extreme.

Individualist Anarchism:

- FREE market.

- Highly individualistic.

- Optimistic view of human nature

- Stateless society.

- Emphasis on freedom and civil liberties (as well as emphasis on

equality)

Comparison between individualist anarchism and liberalism:

View on Human nature/individual:

- Both believe in the primacy of the individual – highly atomistic

(atomism and Stirner-egoism) Egoism implies that the individual is at

the centre of the moral universe with everything revolving around

them. (Taking liberalism to the extreme – individual is free to do

what they want, without regard to anyone, and are capable and rational

of doing so.)

- Hobbes and Locke – ‘reason guided creatures’ but also self serving

and highly egotistical. This differs to anarchists slightly who hold a

much more POSITIVE view of human nature and say that we are not only

reason guided and know what we want and capable of doing so, but we

are also able to live according to universal moral laws. i.e. live

harmoniously amongst one another.

- Mill – ‘other regarding acts’. This implies that there are certain

things that we, as humans should not be able to do e.g. physical harm

(harm principle). Anarchists on the other hand believe that people are

reason guided to know what is right or wrong for themselves, and will

thus know what is best not to do to someone else. (i.e. don’t need to

be told what we can/can’t do by authority)

- NATURAL ORDER (Godwin) – Anarchists believe that everything can fit

into place and emerges if left alone (links with view on economy and

state – i.e. a belief in a stateless and free market society). Hobbes

and liberals regard the need for a state to prevent ‘a war of all

against all’.

Open Document