Francois Tremblay wrote:Hey, how are you doing? Personally I never saw much difference between market anarchism and individualist anarchism (although I understand that they used to hold to outdated economic ideas), egoist anarchism, or voluntaryism. It's all good.
True enough, and I really don't either. I was more talking from the standpoint of how others might view me, as stupid as that is.
Point well taken, though. Spooner, for instance, held to some pretty frigging ridiculous ideas on economics, as I recall, as did most others who were called "individualists", such as Josiah Warren, B.R. Tucker (a hero of the Mutualists), and so forth, as did many other anarchists who were more or less in line with market anarchism otherwise or are tentatively lumped together with the individualists (arguably Voltairine de Cleyre, for instance - though she was mostly one of those "anarchists without hyphens" types).
As I see it, egoist anarchism (a la, e.g., Max Stirner) is fundamentally different from moralistic market anarchism (Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, for instance) not so much in conclusion as in argumentative premise. Namely, Stirner's essentially nihilistic position runs, as I understand it, something like this: "Nothing outside of the ego matters; therefore, the state does not matter and is not binding on the individual's ego." As far as this statement goes, I think I'm more sympathetic to this viewpoint than I would like to consciously admit.
As for the voluntaryists, many are self-described market anarchists, anyway.
Anyway, didn't mean to ramble, but you do have a point that voluntaryism, individualist anarchism, egoist anarchism, and agorism are pretty much firmly tied to market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism.