04/14/2018 (Sat) 02:44:23
Collectivism is seen here as inherently authoritarian, whereas individualism would count as an out.
The evidence is presented from the point of view of inherently authoritarian individualism, so it doesn't really hold water. This is because an anarchist individual would just hold the deed to his property, but asserting the political theory that justifies an increase in its value would have to be enforced by using the Anarcho-Individualist's authority
, making him
the non-anarchist of his own island nation.
Rather, the writeup assumes that being an individual exempts an individual from counting as an authority even if he is capable of committing any action of an authority. Collective is seen as naturally more bound by some form of responsibility towards its outsiders that is not justified. Without this mistake, an anarchist commune would count as a force of nature towards the Anarcho-Individualist and not sustain moral agency within his framework, although it does within its own.