In defense of building

[This question piece is posted at the christian anarchist forum Jesus Radicals, linked here to the title above. So it would be more meaningful to read it there with the response provoked (if any). Coercion means the use of force to make someone comply with any particular intent.]

First a piece of confession: being an architect this is partly written in blatant self-interest. Secondly, I´m no expert on anarchism, christian or otherwise, so if I´m fighting phantoms here, please correct me. My question/critique on anarchism is the onesided analysis of the state, or indeed any empowered organization: Is really coercion and violence all what´s to it? Is there not also a cooperative element of varying strength in the State concept, the idea of the commonwealth? And is it not the sad state of affairs that cooperation and coercion cannot be fully separated?

Particularly if one goes down to a micro-level, leaving Iraq-wars and criminal law aside for a moment. Take city-planning for instance, what would happen without a central body regulating building and weighing the public and private interest against each other? And how could such a body function without coercive powers? Someone may argue that medieval towns worked fine without city-planning offices, and that they made nicer cities than the modern varieties. But then I´d argue back that the medieval town was a product of a tight-knit society which certainly employed coercive powers when necessary, even if those powers were not formalized and institutionalized. So I find a difficulty in believing construction in the broad sense of the word is possible without some measure of coercion. Can there be public amenities without a regulated tax? Yes, but that´s called charity (in the vulgar sense of the word) which has a tendency to become humiliating or even manipulating for those on the receiving end of the stick.

Now I agree that the war in Iraq is a bigger issue than city-planning and building regulations, but I also think there´s a certain advantage in looking at this less dramatic issue. A political philosophy has to deal with the whole spectrum of human affairs, not just the bits which involves killing or not killing ones neighbour. So what I wonder is whether the anarchist position of avoiding coercion taken to its extreme does not mean that cooperative construction becomes impossible?

If cooperative construction is what we want, that is. Again, someone might throw the Tower of Babel at me, saying I´m trying to impersonate God with all this building stuff. But is this not in some sense the christian message, we´re created in the image of God, also creators on a lesser level, building societies, cities and creating cultural knowledge, and from Jesus onwards co-builders of the city of God on earth, as we are clothed with Christ, as Paul has it in Galatians. The city of God “as it still lives by faith in this fleeting course of time, and sojourns as a stranger in the midst of the ungodly”. St Augustine

From the christian perspective, my critique on anarchism is analogous to the critique I would have against those who claim that the main normative message of Christ is non-violence. They´ve added a level of specificity that´s not there. Yes, non-violence is a part of Christs teaching, but if one has to choose a main message I´d go with the summary of the law and the prophets:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
St. Matthew 22:37-39

That this should exclude any and all measure of coercion is not obvious to me.