(Please refer to Stephen’s “Fun with Anarchism” for further context.)
The following argument shall be threefold, dividing the sub-arguments into three bite-size portions: discrimination, individualism, and compliance.
Under Mosaic law, judges and representatives (Ex. 18:19; Num. 1:44 ESV), under God’s authority exercised their power “to do justice…and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). Discrimination within the heart, soul, and mind towards another human being, group of human beings, or object, living or inanimate, (though detestable) is absolutely a right. However, once that individual discriminates against another individual physically, violating their freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, that is intolerable. Though extreme, murder is a type of discrimination. Concerning theft, except for the fact of basic survival, it is disingenuous to that person’s hard-earned labor and wages as well as their family. Now, although an anarcho-capitalist would consider taxation a theft, I would make my argument two-parts: 1) taxation is simply the trading of goods, a direct derivative of a free market between the people and the duly elected leaders and 2) for one who adheres to the Bible, it is properly prescribed forty-three times throughout Scripture. Furthermore, the companies comprising the free market must turn profit. And in order for the company to be profitable, one must make a type of…(wait for it)…tax.
One should be wary of the hyper-individualist arguments by anarcho-capitalists as well as their more left counterparts. Centrism is dull, bleak, lacking life and exuberance. Such neutrality is robotic. The so-called unbiased, centrist, neutral media lacks personality, humor, and an overwhelming desire for truth. Simply reporting as a squire or stenographer is lifeless and, eventually, disinterested with the truth. However, centrism, in the sense of personhood, is selfish. And selfishness is fatal (Prov. 16:18; 1 Tim. 6:10; Matt. 19:24). Additionally, arguing for the protectionist or isolationist policies for one’s government is, though intriguing, antithetical to basic human function. Society flourishes with the procreation of more people, the relationships formed by friends and lovers, and the self-sacrificing charity by all.
I am not arguing for the forcible charity such as pure socialists. I am simply arguing that the very existence of society itself could not be securely knit together without social interaction. And such social interaction (e.g. alliances)—I’m not advocating for globalization—is necessary for the free-flowing markets.
There’s a fine line between non-compliance and apathy/complacency. Non-compliance, in my opinion, disguises itself as civil disobedience. Non-compliance, if enacted upon principle against, emulates the MLK-style anti-establishment rhetoric. However simply refraining from various activities solely based on principle of juvenile rebellion can actually be harmful. It could hurt one’s cause. Without the aggregation of diverse people and a solid case against such, a cause could die young.
Though Stephen notes the immorality and inherent evil within the hearts of mankind (with which I wholeheartedly agree) (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:9-18), he contradicts his basic argument of free communal organization since it intrinsically believes man to be inherently good. Unbeknownst to him, Stephen is utilizing the argument neo-liberals lay hold to in order to justify their overreaching social dominance. James Madison stated,
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
The argument collapses on itself. President Obama has, in the past, voiced his firmly held belief that people are innately good. However, if men were good, the very platform, party, job occupation he uses to propagate his position would be useless. Furthermore, the anarcho-capitalist mantra, the actual libertarian conservatism, is counterintuitive. Why is there an “anarcho-” prefix if the unchecked suffix promulgates indentured servitude, inequality, and discriminatory policies. Though Stephen believes anti-discriminatory policies shouldn’t be mandated by the federal government, since men aren’t angels, discriminatory actions are inevitable. Therein lies the logical, subsequent natural order: “survival of the fittest.” Therein lies chaos.
Overall, the Preacher states, “…there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9). If God, or some form of spiritual authority, did not exist, we would not have the capacity to believe or find the need to organize. Additionally, this intrinsic need to organize, or compartmentalize, whether it be via groupism, tribalism, racism, sexism, or hierarchies, is a representation of our primal subjugation. Servitude and slavery in all its forms and severities is inevitable. We form religions and governments because it is so. If there was no God; if there were no metaphysical, transcendental figure to govern the patterns of creation, anarchism and all of its sub-organized factions would be successful and superfluous throughout human history. However, it hasn’t and never will. Just as the fish cannot live without water, neither can anarchy survive reality.
(For a more in depth take on anarchism, check out “Power Creates Necessary Resistance.”)