If they're stockpiling bombs or something and actively working towards criminal activity, sure. I think monitoring of some anti-government groups who rise to that level, such as some groups within the American militia movement, or groups such as Revolutionary Struggle in Greece, is legitimate.
But I don't think that, in a free country, the government should be monitoring people solely for their political views or what kind of books they read, without some actual evidence that they're a danger to anyone. Sure, maybe someone who buys an Ayn Rand book will eventually work to eliminate government, but I'm not sure owning The Fountainhead should land you on a watchlist; and the same should go for reading Proudhon or Kropotkin.
It's also really easy to run into false positives. In the '80s/'90s, for example, the police/media liked to paint a bunch of generally harmless BBSing kids as "dangerous anarchists" because they had an ASCII file of The Anarchist Cookbook—which is violent anarchist literature, after all.
And is (peacefully) working to eliminate gov't illegal in and of it's self? Could congress vote to dissolve, or amend the constitution to massively reduce the size and scope of the gov't?
It generally isn't, no. In fact under a modern view of the First Amendment, even organizing with an eventual goal of a revolutionary overthrow of the government isn't illegal, as long as it doesn't rise to the level of inciting "imminent lawless action". So, prosecuting communists solely for joining a communist party and advocating communist revolution wasn't allowed after 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio).
Curiously, communists probably had it better precisely because of how focused they were on the one "big" goal (communist revolution): Leninist parties in particular were very centralized, disciplined, and scrupulously avoided doing minor illegal things (vandalism, etc.) that could give the police a excuse, because Marxist-Leninist ideology generally believes that small-scale direct action is ineffective, and the vanguard party should keep its powder dry, so to speak, until they're in position to seize power in one quick move. Anarchists are much more decentralized, and have varying opinions about how to organize change, so there's much more scope for the cops to find someone who spray-painted or vandalized something, and via that argue that any group that person was part of is part of an "anarchist criminal cell" by transitivity (occasionally they get tired of waiting, and a police infiltrator will actively egg on more militancy).
This is probably off topic, but it makes an interesting contrast: in Afganistan and Pakistan, where the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict the U.S. gov, trying to peacefully express disagreement with the U.S. government's policies gets you drone bombed.
To be fair, pretty much anything you do in Pakistan can get you drone bombed, even if it's as simple as going to a wedding party or working in a hospital.
Lest anyone forget, "keeping tabs on anarchists" would also mean spying on people who are more in line with people like Noam Chomsky. There is a huge spectrum of ideology and "danger" that is encompassed by "anarchist".
Not all anarchists are teenage rioters who just want to make trouble and listen to punk music. Hell, many (most?) are not even interested in an active (let alone violent...) overthrow, and are no more politically active than any other person of more mainstream political ideologies.
What you are proposing is that the government spy on anyone who falls within a broad category of political classification. I think the issue with that should be self-evident.
"Our aim is not to overthrow the state, but to ignore it. Anyone who wants to continue to support the state and obey its laws is free to do so, so long as they leave us alone. Our goal is to build the kind of society we want, and prevent the state from overthrowing us while we’re doing it. The last person out of the state can turn off the lights." - Kevin Carson
To some anarchism is the idea of a completely voluntary society. A violent overthrow of the state is against this idea.
Why should the government preemptively keep tabs on anyone? Should the EPA and HUD be able to place sleeper agents in right wing community organizations to monitor them? Should pro-secessionist historians have their phones bugged and be trailed because they don't believe in the legitimacy of the federal state?
Aside from that general principle, there's also the reality of how its implemented. Most of the time sleeper agents are used to get evidence for trumped up, meaningless charges like "interstate travel with intent to riot." That's the best case scenario. At worst, these agents, on not finding something of even minor note, will attempt to incite violence to prove that "those anarchists have really been violent all along." See, for instance, Brandon Darby.
Edited to add: I do, for the record, think that if there's actual evidence that someone's trying to blow up a bridge, monitoring is appropriate (though I don't see why simply arresting them wouldn't usually be sufficient if that were the case). But usually these things are more fishing expeditions than anything, against people whose ideology the State finds distasteful.
All joking aside, because the government is created by the people to serve the people. It is not in the slightest sense the job of the government to sustain itself. That behaviour is the sole result of overpaid, power-hungry politicians who don't want to have to go find a real job.
> the government is created by the people to serve the people.
Be careful, this is only true in certain countries. Sometimes governments are created by someone who is the best warlord & administrator, c.f., Charlemagne.
Government is sustained (or abolished) by the people who employ it. Government that can self-sustain seems dangerously close to a government that doesn't need the people it serves.
A government, if it is to serve the people, should only exist as long as the people will it.
If the people present a democratic threat to the government, the government should fade from existence peacefully. If people present a non-democratic threat to the government, then the government should act to protect itself.
Anarchists do not, categorically, present (or seek to present) a non-democratic threat to the democracy.
Do you want to keep tabs on violent* anarchists? Knock yourself out. I have no particular issue with that.
The issue is not that of government is trying to preserve itself. This is a desirable outcome, if all else were equal. The issue is that, in this case preservation was given priority above other goals, among them preserving the right of people to freely associate.
I am an anarchist (a market anarchist, specifically). It is my professed ideology. I don't break laws (well, maybe occasional acts of non-violent civil disobedience in protest of specific unjust laws), I pay my taxes, and I behave according to pretty high ethical standards.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are files on me with the Austin Police Department, and DHS (via the Fusion Center here in Austin), because an organization I've been a part of has been infiltrated multiple times by undercover APD officers (and APD has, thankfully, been slapped around by judges for doing so, and for the way the officers behaved in the process). But, I'm not pleased about it, and I consider it a violation of basic civil liberties provided by the constitution...since I've never been arrested and never been charged with a crime. I am, by all reasonable standards, an upstanding citizen. Only if you believe holding a belief can be a crime, could you believe that I deserve to be spied on.
I'm sure you hold some beliefs that others, including others in positions of power, consider wrong. Wanting to change (or dismantle peacefully) the government is not a crime.
In short, it aint nobody's business what my ideology is. And, if you believe someone should be put in prison, in solitary, for holding an unpopular ideology...well, that's just not very American. Worse, it's not humanitarian.
Because the Republicans are not proposing the elimination of government by any stretch of the imagination, and you can see that from the link you provided.
If you cursorily examine the history of anarchism, there are those who seek to achieve a violent revolution, and there are those who seek to achieve a peaceful revolution.
It's of course reasonable to keep an eye on seditious groups: these almost by definition imperil life, liberty, property, etc. It is another thing altogether to keep an eye on someone who wants to peacefully change government via peaceful and lawful means.
