In Defense of Lawless Anarchy?

So I have this issue with labels this week, having been called a few names around town. I do love fan email from thumpers. I have a special republicon repository.
Maybe your academic solution to dissent will be to suggest a boot in our collective asses? How's that plan working out for you? Some other eloquent euphemism for your 'might makes right' imperial design? I think that some of YOU hate us for our liberty far more than people abroad. You may not attack us violently, but many of you aim to end our mental/spiritual autonomy just the same.
See I despise senseless label slinging because in my view, it constitutes not only a simplification of one's perspective (AKA lazy) but also provides an unnecessarily myopic view on the real tension between 'theory' and 'reality'. The misuse of labels and categorization also feeds my irritation with the state of civic education. (continued)
But given that labels have become the language of conversation, lets look at what they used to mean. In a reasonable way.
Let's take a gander at the parties: Supposedly, Republicans were about permitting the market to orchestrate the machinery by which we meet the needs of society- industry and its innovative vigor will employ people, contribute to the GNP, provide for the needs of the populace, and so forth. Government is to be a restrained beast, on a leash held back from state sovereignty and excessive regulation. Spending should ideally reflect that which is necessary, but where local and private sectors can pick up the tab, they should do so. Right?
Now lets take the liberals, the tax-and-spend Dems, and their ilk. They are all about moaning about public health, and education, and the priorities of spending. They recognize that pandemics, pollution, problematic social services, homelessness, health care, education, etc. are part of what constitutes 'the public welfare'. The inherent function of government, in tandem with the market but not beholden to it. They view at least marginal sustenance as a right, not a privilege. And they will point out that the market does not care about society as it is inherently driven by profit. It serves the public interest to have safety nets. After all, TB, homelessness, poorly educated workers, etc. hurts everyone's societal aspirations. These are the things that give birth to bureaucracy in the first place.
Which is not to suggest that this is all bad. It's about who the master is, really.
I think a key difference is that liberals acknowledge the failings of the market by virtue of its purpose, which is not to attend to social problems but to exist as it is- a damn market...They see government and its revenues as poised to respond as a collaborative other hand. And so round and round we go with this.
But what I am called often is an anarchist, hellbent on lawlessness. No loyalty, no 'focus on the family' values. Unpatriotic. A government hater- which couldn't be further from the truth. "You people are atheists, anarchists, unrealistic in your expectations, confused about your patriotism, critics- at best. Useless whiners, more often than not."

They have effectively blurred the lines between a REGIME hater and one that hates one's country. They have been able to sell themselves NOT on the merits of their accomplishments but by skewing the label-racket in their favor. And instead of acknowledging that this administration caters to neither the positive aspects of Republican thought (there are a few) nor the criticisms of liberalism, they are in fact a political train wreck.

What we have are tax and spend intrusive rights-trampling interventionists. Our problem with this administration boils down to the fact that they offer NOTHING. Nothing but empty promises, illusions of safety, and another nail in the coffin of our environmental demise. They exist for their own sakes, and when last I checked our salary enables them to continue in our name but decidedly NOT on our behalf. The arrogance of the joke that is Bush the Public Servant is just not fucking funny anymore.

Look at their contradictions: deficit,trade imbalance, bloated mechanations of the FED, corruption, poor disaster response, misguided spending, far-reaching civil liberties violations, surveillance, corporate subsidies, fucked up tax code, non-competitive contract awards, no bid services, public health in the hand of the pharmaceutical gods, public policy in the hands of lobbyists, talk about local education decisions but unfunded federal mandates... moral authority when we torture, impose state religion, in our little insulated world of near state propagandist media... and this is the short list.
Because I say that this ought to be challenged, makes me an anarchist? An alarmist? A Birkenstock wearing, patchouli wafting, dope dealing, hairy legged, probably feminist, Chomsky on the refrigerator next to Che Guevera HYSTERIC???? Get real, thumpers.

To say that THIS is unnacceptable doesn't make us unpatriotic, it means we are paying attention. To say that I want RESPONSIVE versus elitist self interested government makes me a participant in what can best be described as a hypothetical democracy. But we try.
Anarchist? Liberal? Hippie? What does it matter? We have a constitution that supposedly summarizes our vision. It's not my vision. Its a vision that we command- from immigrants to public servants. Its all allegiance to an idea that many think applies when people are looking. Or if you believe in the same God.
It is not just a 'piece of paper' it is a relevant document, and I fail to see how asserting its relevance makes us lawless anarchists.
See here's the thing about label-slinging and why it renders a position so ineffective. Yes, we use terms like 'wingnut' but we do so as political shorthand for what we all understand to be amendment-stomping theocentric individuals that seek to impose their singular world view on a population enriched by its plurality and the scope of its dissent. Labels are useful, as profanity can be- when applied toward healthy dialogue.
Where labels fail is in their tendency to reduce us to polarized morons that shout across the aisle with little understanding of what we are criticizing. And I am pretty damn clear about the objects of my angst, thank you.

What I am is a person that believes that the government exists for its own sake and for that of business- not to contribute to our standard of living but to its detriment. Government that is responsive to collective problems, like large scale disaster, commerce, safety, relief- thats the governmental model that I favor which is far from anarchy. There's this idea out there that we either take a panaramic view of bureaucracy as liberals, or embrace the contrast of free market-loving individualists propped by a pseudo-theocracy..
The trouble is that neither are relevant in the alleged model of America. I pass on this buffet, thank you.