A discussion on a private email list brought up a familiar topic: When is it permissible for self-described anarchists (let’s restrict ourselves here to anarcho-capitalists) to take government money? This is a tricky question, and I have yet to see someone offer a satisfactory list of necessary and sufficient conditions. Usually when an-caps argue about this, they end up shooting more and more refined analogies back and forth.
For example, to me it’s not enough to say that any money spent in the private sector is legitimate (vis-a-vis one’s anarchism). I personally would not feel justified in working for a Halliburton. However, what about the guy who opens a Dunkin Donuts near a police station? Is he accepting “government money”? Does it matter if he’s in a podunk town with a sheriff and a deputy, versus if he lives in LA and knows for a fact that several of his customers beat the #$#)($* out of suspects? A big problem in this area is education: Can anarcho-capitalist economists take teaching posts at State schools? After all, the State intervenes heavily in education, which is a perfectly laudable market institution. But surely there are more teaching posts because of the State than there otherwise would be. Does the an-cap professor have to estimate whether his or her post would actually exist in the absence of State intervention, or is that irrelevant? Personally, I have decided that I will never work for an official State school. If I really mean it when I refer (in LRC articles, for example) to the State as “a gang of killers and thieves,” then how can I possibly associate with such people? Yes yes, there are millions of analogies and counterarguments, but for me there is a definite line to be drawn at actually being on the payroll. (I also wouldn’t take welfare, for example, even though in previous years I have put in a lot to the tax system.)
Before closing, I should say that in no way am I taking a holier than thou stance. For example, I applied for the Stafford (unsubsidized!) loan in grad school, even though the State technically coerced those lending institutions into offering me such low rates. And I know a guy who is so hard core about starving the beast, that he felt like a sellout when he took a job on the books and had some of his paycheck withheld. (I.e. when he worked under the table, then at least his money wasn’t funding the State’s wars etc.) But as far as State schools, I think there are a few other things that people often leave out of the discussion. First, why would I want to throw my talents into a State school? I would much rather work on the side of the underdog, and every time I publish a paper or give a talk, I want a private school to get the credit. (This also applies to whatever influence I have on students; I don’t want to enhance a State school’s reputation by churning out better-than-otherwise students, so long as I could do the same at a private school.) A second issue is a bit more subtle: When moderate Americans hear of an-cap professors berating the existence of the State, while they work for the State, I think two things happen. (A) They think, “What a hypocrite! These ivory tower academics need to get in the real world before redesigning society!” And (B), they think, “Our government is so open and tolerant! It even employs academics who call for its abolition! I’m so glad I live here and not under the Taliban.” (Again, this is not meant as a criticism of those who choose to work at State schools. I’m just explaining my position.)
