Cross posted at http://www.peaceisactive.com
I'm all for personal freedom and responsibility, but I'm not an anarchist.
I support the need for legitimate governments on the local, national, and global levels.
Republicans often call themselves libertarians, but I often wonder how far a jump it is from being a libertarian to being an anarchist.
Various groups have various reasons for not liking the idea of government. Governments have been run by a long list of bad kings, dictators, religious leaders, and politicians. Governments have made a lot of bad decisions that have caused great amounts of death and destruction.
On the other hand, governments continue to change. Instead of being run by secretive dictators and kings, governments around the world are now being run by people who are elected and accountable to the people being represented. This has been a great development, but we still have a long way to go in the effort of improving and maintaining legitimate governments.
There are many reasons why anarchists, libertarians, and many republicans still oppose the idea of having a government.
Some people just have no hope. They see the abuses of government and have no hope that government can be more transparent and more accountable in the future so they decide to reject the entire idea of government.
Some people reject government because they don't want to live according to the decisions being made by the government. A business executive who wants to dump toxic waste in the river doesn't want a group of citizens standing by the river demanding answers, cleanup or payment of a fine.
Some people reject government because they don't agree with the values being used to make decisions. Racist people don't want democratic decisions telling them that all children deserve equal opportunity. Religious fundamentlists don't like democratic decisions that are opposed to the rulings of their religious leaders. Market fundamentalists don't want democratic decisions getting in the way of their favored economic values.
Whatever the reason for opposing legitimate governments, the strategies are usually the same.
If they do not control the government, anarchists, libertarians, and republicans hoot and hollar about how bad the government is. It really is not too hard to get people riled up by talking about how bad government is.
If they take control of government, the idea is to destroy the government or change it to support the favorite value. The Bush Administration is an easy example of this. They rallied against "washington" throughout their campaign and then once they got into power, they took action to limit democracy while also trying to destroy the government by sending it into massive debt. They also put people in positions of power who support the interests of the market much more than the interests of the people being represented.
Iraq serves as another example. The Bush Administration wanted to install a new government in Iraq that would tie Iraq (and the entire Middle East) to the global market. They also wanted to install a "democracy" that could be bought and sold. When the Shia religious groups won the election, this was very bad news for the Bush administration. Now, there is a government in Iraq who wants to make all decisions according to their goals as a religious government.
I don't think that all Republicans are anarchists because I know some of them support a small, efficient, and legitimate government.
However, I think it is reasonable to say that the Bush Administration is close to being in support of anarchy. I think they would love to have everyone on their own in a war of all against all with money being the only factor determining who gets to eat, drink, or see a doctor.
This is why the Bush administration does not react to the disasters in Iraq or the Gulf Coast. They don't believe in government action or support. They want the market to determine what happens. They don't mind a little anarchy.