When I recalled the discussion between myself and my brother-in-law, and he said that I was a conservative anarchist, and that I thought he was a progressive authoritarian, I wasn't being facetious.  He really thinks I'm an anarchist.  His contention is that anarchists have a bad wrap, and perhaps he's right.  The popular connotation of anarchists are those who espouse no government at all.  But even more than that... mentioning anarchy automatically brings up images of riots, disorder, and civilization as we know it coming to an end.

But at one point in time, there were millions of anarchists in the United States.  The ultimate goal of anarchists wasn't the dissolution of all government, but rather the idea that local government, and more importantly, local collectives, should hold the majority of power in the country.  And truth be told, that is really just the ultimate extreme of Libertarian, and even Republican philosophy.  The only difference between the three groups is the degree of control to be placed in local government, and the form it should take.

The biggest problem that large centralized governments like that which is growing in the United States isn't necessarily bureaucracy which chokes innovation, freedom, and common sense (though that is a significant problem).  The ultimate problem with centralized government is corruption.  There are many reasons for this.

Transparency:  The larger the government, the more layers that exist between the voter and the ultimate decision makers.  These layers each exist to hide the reasons for, and the consequences of decisions that are made.  Though many people would argue that it is easier to watchdog a single body of government... I think we can all agree based on recent experience how hard it really is.  Each of those layers exist to foil watchdogs, and keep people from being held accountable.

Voter Dilution:  The larger the government, and the further away it is from the people, the less your vote counts.  Think about how many people representatives there are in the Wisconsin State Legislature vs. Congress.  Each individual voter has less and less say in their lives, the further away you get from government.

Unresponsiveness:  Large government is fat, has too much momentum in one direction, and is slow to change.  The sheer number of people involved in making any one decision is so large that it's almost impossible to reach a consensus.  Not only that, but the sheer number of people affected by each decision is so large, that trying to find a one size fits all solution to any given problem is nearly impossible as well.

Honey Pot Effect:  When there is only one government body that exists to make all major decisions, then that body is the ultimate honey pot for corruption.  If you can control that one government, then you've got it made.  It's sheer size and power acts as a magnet for corruption.  The solution isn't to watch it closer, but rather to kill it.  If it lacks power, then there is no reason to corrupt it.

The idea of local government and collectives (anarchy) serves to battle each of these problems.  Small local governments and collectives are significantly for transparent simply because of their small size.  There are simply very few places to hide, or obfuscate decision making like there is in centralized governments.  It's smaller size means your vote actually counts to something.  More than that, your voice actually counts for something, since you can regularly talk to those making the decisions.  That person is your neighbor, or one of your friends.  You truly know the people who help maintain control.

Local government is much faster to act than large government as well, simply because of its small size.  It can meet faster, and make decisions faster.  And because the set of people affected by any decision is smaller, it's easier to come up with a solution that most people would like.  Finally, the honey pot simply doesn't exist for local government.  When government is decentralized, there are simply too many targets to control them all.  That doesn't mean that corruption can't take hold in individual communities.  But when it does, it only affects those people.  When a centralized government is corrupted, then everyone is affected.  Of course, corruption is much easier to fight when it's on a small scale.  Just hire the A-Team.

The only real problem that I can see with the potential success of local government, is that people are busy bodies who can't mind their own damn business.  People these days seem to care more about what other people do with their lives, than what they do with their own.  That is the ultimate draw of centralized government.  You have the chance of making other people do what you want to do.  Of course the danger is that other people might force you to do what they want to do.

So how would you rather have it?

To be clear, I'm actually not an anarchist.  I am a Libertarian, but apparently my foolish belief that school boards should have more say in education than the Dept. of Education led him to label me an anarchist.