The anarchy I believe in is characterized by a single guiding principle. The use or threat of aggressive force is always illegitimate. Everything beyond that is purely speculation. Do you think libertarians care whether or not a union of workers open a factory and run it by committee? Not in the slightest. In fact, I’d make popcorn and pay to watch a reality TV show based on it, just as a proof of concept. Although if I paid them they might think they were exploiting me. Libertarianism doesn’t permit domination by unaccountable private tyranny, because the workers are always free to go and work in the anarcho-syndicalist’s factory.
.. You can’t tell me for one second there aren’t enough syndicalists to pool your resources and open a Che Guevara t-shirt factory. Chomsky probably makes enough in book sales and speakers fees alone. So get to work. Prove us wrong.
Chomsky makes no attempt to define his terms. He just throws around words like “subordination” and “slavery.” He writes, “It’s better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them” with no recognition whatsoever that that’s exactly what democracy is.
The most consistent market libertarians are ready to turn the switch and disarm the State tomorrow, because we believe in emergent order. The best protections for our health, security and dignity can be achieved by peaceful means, and it is the State that thwarts those means ..
.. Chomsky is not an anarchist. He is a reluctant Statist. He doesn’t even satisfy his own whitewashed definition of anarchy as a tendency to question authority and domination. He doesn’t question the authority and domination of the State programs he favors. No skepticism. No free association. Chomsky needs the State’s authority and hierarchy to dominate those who believe in private property.
If the burden of justification rests on the one who dominates, where is his?