Abstract

This response to Roderick T. Long's defense of anarchism attempts to show that the ethical and the practical arguments for anarchism do not converge; that anarchism satisfies neither Ayn Rand's demand for objective justice nor Isabel Paterson's demand for structured checks on the abuse of power; that the chief economic argument for the practicality of anarchism, the argument from competition, is contrary to basic economic principles; and that crucial anarchist claims defy ordinary and defensible notions of justice, usefulness, and reasonableness. Also attempted is an identification of the legitimately coercive economic function of government.