How does one argue with an individualist anarchist?

[RedScare]

Title pretty much says it all. How does one take apart the arguments of a person who says he is a follower of Benjamin Tucker and Max Stirner, who thinks barter is the best way for the economy to be organized?

[Kassad]

If I remember correctly, Benjamin Shaw got all but destroyed by Albert Meltzer in his writings. Basically, I think Shaw was forced to concede the point that a private police force would settle disputes between citizens, thus some form of state oppression would still exist. Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are self-defeating, since they advocate laissez-faire economics, which in turn creates a wealth hierarchy. The wealthy use their clout to maintain control.

You can't advocate the destruction of the state and then support wealth accumulation, which is exactly what this type of an "anarchist" society would do. Completely ridiculous, self-defeating and it is a hyper-dose of class conflict that would inevitably collapse. These laissez-faire types are insane. We let the Chicago School under Friedman dictate the economic system in Chile. Great job there, right guys?

[Raúl Duke]

anarcho-capitalism [is] self-defeating

I agree, this system will create inequality that can only be maintain by setting up a state or at least some of the rudiments of the state like a police force/army (albeit private ones hired by the rich). In capitalism, capital and those who have it rule.

Although, I think to better respond could you (the OP) tell us more about this person's views (besides just telling us that he prefers "barter") of his ideal economical system? (This is needed to know cause he may be arguing for mutualism and not exactly capitalism.)

[Diagoras]

It depends on precisely what the individual is proposing. Various "market" propositions within anarchism are actually different in terms of their theoretical outcome, even between individual like Tucker and Stirner. However, Meltzer did indeed argue well against these schools when asserting that the maintenance of any private control of property beyond the scale of some variant of individual possession or usufruct would necessitate an entire structure of property contract interpretation and enforcement that would amount in effect if not in name to a state. Indeed, this fact among others was an impetus in Voltairine de Cleyre rejecting individualist anarchism in favor of what she called "anarchism without adjectives".

Some variants of mutualism offer to mitigate these problems through a rejection of some aspects or at least the extent of market operations, and seem to succeed with varying degrees. However, the retention of complex money markets in itself has its own undesirable results that must then be argued against.

[apathy maybe]

Please note there is a big difference between socialist individualist anarchism, and non-anarchist "anarcho-capitalism". I personally don't see the need to worry about socialist individualist anarchism, because, after all, they just want anarchy, just like me.

"Anarcho"-capitalists, however, aren't anarchists (or socialists) at all. They desire hierarchy of wealth, and a system that would quickly evolve into one with a state. Individualist anarchists, however, don't like hierarchy at all, and reject the idea of ownership of capital (proposing that only those things which are being used, are owned by that person).

So where as individualist anarchists think that a worker should have the right to their full labour, capitalists believe it's fine and dandy for a worker to only receive half of the benefit of their labour, because the capitalist owns the machinery. Individualist anarchists would say, "because the worker uses the machinery, they 'own' it, not the capitalist".

This is simplified, and I suggest you look more into what individualist anarchists mean by "ownership", before you take what I say at face value.

Regarding the two names you mention. Benjamin Tucker is widely considered an anarchist (at least by those people who don't have their heads up their arses when it comes to anything other then communist anarchism). Max Stirner, is also often considered an anarchist. But not all of his ideas are anarchistic.

[Charles Xavier]

Tell them that that it is a Utopian idea and will never happen so don't worry yourself because its impossible to implement. The corporate powers to be and the Imperialists love the things as they are running right now. The state is really theirs. Why would the corporations want to change a good thing, working people don't want these corporations to control the world, so no class forces inside this planet other than cave bats and weird nerds are these liberation right anarchists.

[RedScare]

Interesting. I was coming up a little dry on arguments to use, because my knowledge of theory isn't what it should be. Thanks guys.

[Diagoras]

Georgi, I think, on a revolutionary leftist board, it is best to refrain from dismissing other schools of thought by simply calling them "utopian" and their adherents "weird nerds" or "cave bats". Reason tends to be a better tool with which to criticize and reject these conflicted ideas, not simple insult.

[Charles Xavier]

Well there is my analysis, there isn't any class forces interested in implementing Libertarian ideology. Working people don't want it, and the corporate powers to be are already in power, if anything they are for the strengthening of a state against "property crime" and deregulating it against working people. As such its Utopian. And every Right-wing Anarchist I've encountered in my whole life are weird nerds.