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 chipping in
for 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-over
of 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 government
are, in fact, paradigm cases of anarchists?
It’s true! I read it on the Internet..
(Thanks, Guerilla Science.)
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:
Ms. Jones,
I recently read your column, The battle between law and
anarchy, for the Rocky Mountain News. You wondered if 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 the rule
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
an anarchist,
when part of the point of the quip that you refer
to (about making 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 for
limited taxation.
If you, personally, don’t mind chipping in
for 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 to chip in
are 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?
Curiously,
Charles Johnson
Let’s hear your response!