The anarchist's myth: Autonomy, children, and state legitimacy

Luara Ferracioli*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

    Abstract

    Philosophical anarchists have made their living criticizing theories of state legitimacy and the duty to obey the law. The most prominent theories of state legitimacy have been called into doubt by the anarchists' insistence that citizens' lack of consent to the state renders the whole justificatory enterprise futile. Autonomy requires consent, they argue, and justification must respect autonomy. In this essay, I want to call into question the weight of consent in protecting our capacity for autonomy. I argue that if we care about all of the preconditions for autonomy, then we have good reasons to leave the state of nature. This leaves the philosophical anarchist with a dilemma. If she truly cares about autonomy, then she must welcome the state. But if she wants to deny the legitimacy of the state because of the value of consent, then she needs to downplay the moral significance of autonomy in people's lives. If autonomy matters, the state does too. If it doesn't, then consent doesn't. The philosophical anarchist can't have it both ways.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)370-385
    Number of pages16
    JournalHypatia
    Volume30
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2015

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'The anarchist's myth: Autonomy, children, and state legitimacy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this