Is anarchism merely liberal individualism taken to its logical extreme?

The most extreme form of individualist anarchism, advocated by Max Stirner, is egoism, where it is believed that an individual should act as he chooses without consideration for social conventions, religious, or moral principles. Thoreau's anarchism is not as extreme as Stirner's. Thoreau placed "individual conscience above the demands of political obligation." He believes that because individualism leads in the direction of civil disobedience, the individual needs to be faithful to his or her own conscience and only do what they believe is right, regardless of demands of society or laws made by government. It is Thoreau who said, "that government is best which governs not at all." This can be said to  be merely a radical form of the early nineteenth century liberal ideas, that state should play a minimal role in society. This is because, similarly to Anarchist, at the heart of liberalism lies a fear of unchecked power. Liberals believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and hence checks and balances should prevent government becoming oppressive.

Under the idea of anarcho-communism, all private property is literally theft (Proudhon) They believe that private property encourages selfishness, promotes conflict and social disharmony. Unequal ownership of wealth fosters greed, envy and resentment. Moreover, laws protecting private property and the government are both inadequate and harmful, and once political oppression and economic injustice are abolished, laws to protect people will simply be unnecessary. Proudhon also condemned system of economic exploitation based upon accumulation of capital. He advocated that Humans leading a shared and communal existence should share the wealth they have generated.

This would suggest that anarchism does not represent liberal ideas regarding private property. Locke would argue that we are born with “natural rights” and therefore we have a right to property, a certain basic standard of living and liberty”. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. During this some freedoms will be given up in order to obtain different rights. For example, the government will try to provide maximum utility as the cost of some of citizen’s freedoms. This allows for greater equality of opportunity and meritocracy to be exercised.  

However, Proudhon was not against all forms of private property, as he distinguished between property and 'possessions.' Proudhon wanted to establish system of property ownership that would avoid exploitation and promote social harmony, and advocated the more moderate idea of 'mutualism.' Mutualism is a system of fair and equitable exchange, in which individuals and groups can bargain with one another, trading goods and services without profiteering or exploitation. The social interaction would be voluntary, mutually beneficial and harmonious, requiring no regulation or interference by government. This would be the most effective form of trade since people would be social as their needs were in common with someone’s else need. This is opposing the liberal view that the free market should allow individuals with a willingness to work to prosper whilst those who are lazy will not. This is known as social darwinianism. This is will result in greater divisions in economic wealth in a way that anarchist cannot accept hence they are not just an extreme of liberalism. Rawls called this aspect of Liberalism “equality of opportunity.” 

While liberals tend to advocate efforts to reform the existing system (through such means as voting, lobbying, and organized demonstrating), anarchists have a more radical view, and wish to replace corrupt institutions entirely, and refashion a more humane society by means of direct action, without reliance on any form of state intervention. According to Locke, since men are guided by their God-given reason, it is their duty to protect themselves and their property.  If either is threatened, they have the right and duty to withdraw their consent and dissolve the state so that a new one can be formed.

In conclusion the different aspects of anarchism encompass several other ideologies, for example the classical liberal ideas on economics and the idea of the sovereign individual. However, anarchists and liberals differ in their views on what 'freedom' is and the existence of representative and constitutional institutions. On the one hand it can be argued that due to the influence of other ideologies, anarchism is not one single doctrine. However, it can be argued on the other hand that anarchism pushes the ideas that it draws from other ideologies to the extreme, making anarchism one single extreme ideology.