But most of all, because the Party is filled with utter wackos (and I'm saying that about these people). There isn't a place for moderates -- that is, non-anarchists. I don't use the term "anarchist" lightly, but in full reference to the Party leadership and dominant body which advocates a completely stateless society.I agree completely. The founding fathers realized that government is a necessary evil. They supported limited government for this very reason.
Egregious Charles at Geek with a .45 points out neo-anarchism primary flaw:
I'm an anarcho-capitalist in the same way I'm a pacifist; that is, I'll become one at the same time as everyone else. It's moral position seems as unassailable as that of pacifism. So if either one were a realistic option at all, it'd be the only option. But with pacifism, in the real world, there are too many situations where refusing to participate in violence does nothing to reduce violence, but simply makes it one sided.Amen. Anarchy can be attractive in a Fuzzy Lumpkin's "Stay off'n my proportay!" sort of way. But it is unable to react to problems in any sort of organized manner. Even contractual forms break down because there is no court to decide questions of contract law. It isn't fault tolerant and it is very easy to create faults.
This is why the guys over at QandO are creating something they call neo-liberatarianism. They want smaller government, but they still want government if only for roads, courts, and a common defense.