ok, so here is the form of an argument for anarchism. what y'all think?
definition of 'anarchism': the view that all human associations and structures of authority should be fully voluntary.
argument:
there are three primary arguments for the legitimacy of state power.
(1) social contract, according to which persons agree to give up certain liberties in exchange for certain protections, thus forming a state. social contract theory rests on consent, because no contract can be made involuntarily.
response: as a matter of fact, no such consent is solicited or given. showing this would require anwering the various accounts of "tacit consent" in various social contract theorists. i assert that this can be done easily in many ways. note that social contract theory entails anarchism as defined above.
(2) pragmatic, according to which people's uninhibited action is so often greedy or criminal that they must be constrained by authority to behave justly.
response: this commits the ontological error of ascribing super-human status to the people who compose the state, else the authority (=weaponry) invested in them cannot address the problem but only exacerbate it, as demonstrated by the wars and genocides prosecuted by nation states. since state power is practically destructive, pragmatic considerations should draw you toward anarchism.
(3) "ethical," on which state power can be justified by and when and to the extent that it increases the justice of a society (rawls, plato, etc).
response: unlike the last two, this at least is not an obvious non-starter. note that it entails that justice is something independent of state power: it gives an account of "natural justice," perhaps (well this would be my preference) in terms of "natural rights." the binding force of law in this case would not be found in the law, but in the justice for which, supposedly, it is instituted. then any law which is a violation of the justice that precedes the existence of the state is not binding. this will take you straight to thoreau, then straight into anarchism, except in a case wherein law coincides precisely with conscience.
q.e.d.
and not only are the arguments not convincing, they all pull at you toward anarchism. fans of state power should just come right out and admit it: state power is, er, justified only by force.
this seems like the outline for a book, ya know?
