Peter Hart Ward wrote:
>
> I don't see libertarianism as radically individualist, although in
> the US many do define it this way. But, strictly speaking, its akin
> to anarchism-opposed to illegitimate authority ]clip]
Everyone opposes illegitimate authority. That's what Hitler & Mussolini were doing: opposing authority _they_ viewed as illegitimate. That's what the word "illegitimate" means.
> I think this portrayal of anarchism/libertarianism as being hyper-
> individualist is largely a strawman construction erected those who
> feel threatened by it. If you actually look at the history of
> anarchism, it has been a tremendously well-organized movement.
I don't understand your use of "individualism." Of course most individualist political theories emphasize authority and organization. They differ among themselves only as to what kind of organization and authority over what. By individualism I would mean the theory that society is made up of and consists of separate individuals: Margaret Thatcher's, "Society does not exist, only individuals and families." Versus a historical perspective that wherever and whenever one finds oneself one is always already enmeshed in an ensemble of social relations. The historical person simply has no existence in abstraction from the social relations which are his history. I do not _have_ a history, I _am_ a history. Anarchists and individualists see themselves as having some sort of identity prior to and independently of the social relaitons in which they are enmeshed.
Carrol