Did you know …
… that Christian anarchism (think William Lloyd Garrison or Leo Tolstoy) is just like anti-abortion terrorism and Christian Reconstructionism?
… that if you, personally, don’t mind
public roads, schools and sewer systems,that constitutes a knock-down refutation of the anarcho-capitalist complaint against taxation?
… that anti-capitalist anarchists are in fact Maoists who want a
do-overof Bolshevik totalitarianism?
… that dismantling the right of habeas corpus is, in fact, a step towards anarchism?
… that Republican legislators and lobbyists who occasionally express
contempt for governmentare, in fact, paradigm cases of anarchists?
Here, at least, is something that anarchists of all sects, organizations, and creeds can come together on: Lisa Jones is a know-nothing blowhard. You can let her know what you think at HeyJones@gmail.com. Here’s my contribution:
I recently read your column, The battle between law and anarchy, for the Rocky Mountain News. You wonderedif most political debates today aren’t between right and left, but between anarchism and rule of law.I think you’re probably right, but I can’t say that I’m entirely convinced by your brief in favor of therule of law.
There’s a lot to wonder about; for example, your comparison of the pacifist Christian anarchism of Leo Tolstoy or William Lloyd Garrison (who described complete nonviolence as one of the highest Christian duties) to the statist politics of the Christian Reconstruction movement seems a bit strained, as does your attempt to compare anti-capitalist anarchists such as Emma Goldman or Mikhail Bakunin to the death march of forced collectivism under Mao Zedong. (For the record, you might try reading the extensive and fierce anarchist polemics against Bolshevik tyranny, such as Goldman’s My Disillusionment in Russia.) I was also a bit puzzled by your attempt to portray Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist as ananarchist,when part of the point of the quip that you refer to (aboutmaking government so small you can drown it in the bathtub) is that he doesn’t want to abolish the government.
But for the moment I want to focus on a more theoretical point. In the course of criticising anarcho-capitalism, you say:
But anarcho-capitalists also oppose taxation and the very existence of the state. They want to privatize all public institutions, such as schools, and rely on a self-regulating competitive marketplace instead of government. …
Plus, I don’t mind chipping in for public roads, schools and sewer systems. Insofar as tax revenues are used wisely for the common good, I support limited taxation.
Actually, all anarchists oppose taxation and the very existence of the state. That’s what makes them anarchists rather than statists. But I’m a bit puzzled by the justification you give forlimited taxation.If you, personally, don’t mindchipping infor public roads, schools, and sewer systems, then no anarchist would suggest that you shouldn’t be allowed to get out your checkbook and make a donation. But that’s not taxation. Taxation is what happens when other people who don’t want tochip inare forced to do so. Do you think that you have the right to sign away other people’s money without their consent? If not, why does your personal willingness to pay for public goods have anything to do with the argument?
Let’s hear your response!