Why Aren't You an Anarchist?by Robert
Dr. Fred Foldvary advocates a variant of ananchism, “geoanarchism, in which people would live in contractual communities whose public goods are financed from land rent” […] “The members would share the belief that the land rent should be collected and distributed to all members equally or else used for public goods.”
Geoanarchism also solves the problem of the provision of public goods, which is problematic for atomistic anarchism. For example, with atomistic anarchism, each household would contract with a street provider, but the street company could charge a very high renewal fee to access the street, since the house owner has no alternative.
Atomistic anarchism (a.k.a. anarcho-capitalism) also envisions multiple defense agencies, which are constantly negotiating conflicts among members, while geoanarchism
envisions all communities in harmony under one federation and rule of law. With one federated system, geoanarchism
would be under a libertarian constitution, whereas atomistic anarchism has no constitution and could have communities with tyrannies of the majority, forcing dissidents to move out or comply. Nevertheless, individualist anarchism would be mostly libertarian, and could solve the defense and street problem by moving towards a more communitarian version.
So, given the option of geoanarchism which provides a uniform rule of law, and therefore harmony without tyranny, why aren’t you an anarchist?
Would anyone care to challenge the good doctor’s assertions?
hat tip: Old Whig