A Philosophical Challenge
My irritating yet astounding new book Against the State (SUNY Press) argues that all the arguments of the great philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Hegel, Rawls, Nozick, and Habermas, among others), are, putting it kindly, unsound.The state rests on violence: not the consent of the governed, not utility, not rational decision-making, not justice.
Not only are the existing arguments for the legitimacy of state power unsound; they are shockingly fallacious, a scandal, an embarrassment to the Western intellectual tradition.
So I issue a challenge: Give a decent argument for the moral legitimacy of state power, or reconstruct one of the traditional arguments in the face of the refutations in Against the State.If you can't, you are rationally obliged to accept anarchism.
I'd offer a huge cash prize, but I'm broke.
Henceforward, if you continue to support or observe the authority of government, you are an evil, irrational cultist.
You're an anarchist now, baby, until further notice.
e-mail responses to c.sartwell@verizon.com
Yours in anarchy,
Crispin Sartwell
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Against the State
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If you can't [give a decent argument for the moral legitiimacy of state power], you are rationally obliged to accept anarchism.
(from Wikipedia:)
According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance". Anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Some anarchists have opposed coercion, while others have supported it, particularly in the form of violent revolution on the path to anarchy or utopia.
I'll be honest, I don't really know what anarchy is. What are the benefits of anarchy vs. the government we have now and how do you see us transitioning from our present state to a state of anarchy?
As for the legitimacy of state power, an institution is perceived as legitimate if approval for that institution is general among those people subject to its authority. I would estimate that over 90% of Americans would consider our present government legitimate despite the fact that they are extremely upset at how it has been working (or not working!) lately.
I think the general anarchy that is being used here is the idea that human interaction should be consensual, and that government power fails that test and is therefor unjustified. That is the benefit of anarchy - the lack of unjustified state power.
"an institution is perceived as legitimate if approval for that institution is general among those people subject to its authority"
Perceived? Why should I care about perceived? By this definition, an institution whose mission is to kill everyone who disapproves of it would be perceived as legitimate if it achieved enough success at its mission.
have you read Crispin's book?
not yet.
Post a Comment