Questions: Political Anarchism

Question 1

A philosophical anarchist is told: 'Citizens voted for these laws in a democratic election — that's why you're obligated to obey them.' The anarchist's strongest reply is:

• A. Most citizens didn't actually vote, so democratic authority is statistically invalid
• B. Democracy produces better outcomes than other systems but still lacks legitimacy
• C. Even in a democracy, obeying because the majority voted for it — rather than because you independently evaluated and endorsed the command — is incompatible with moral autonomy. Democratic procedures don't dissolve the conflict between autonomy and authority
• D. Majority rule creates obligation only for those who voted in favor; dissenters are not bound

Answer: (C)

Wolff's autonomy argument targets the STRUCTURE of political authority, not the procedure that generates it. Democratic authority still requires citizens to treat state commands as binding in virtue of being state commands — obeying because the majority said so, not because you independently evaluated the command. This is incompatible with moral autonomy regardless of how the law was made. Options A and D are empirical objections about who voted, not the structural autonomy argument. Option B grants democratic legitimacy, which Wolff explicitly denies.

Question 2

A philosophical anarchist concedes that a functional state prevents widespread violence and chaos. What follows from this?

• A. The anarchist's position is refuted — if the state produces good outcomes, it must have legitimate authority
• B. Citizens now have a moral obligation to obey the state, derived from the benefits they receive
• C. The state may be practically necessary, but practical necessity does not generate moral authority — compliance can be prudent without being morally obligatory
• D. The anarchist must advocate maintaining the state while working to reform it toward greater justice

Answer: (C)

This is the 'mugger analogy': if you hand over your wallet because you'll be shot otherwise, your compliance is prudent but the mugger had no right to your wallet. Similarly, the philosophical anarchist holds that the state may prevent worse outcomes (making compliance rational) without having the RIGHT to coerce (which would make compliance morally obligatory). Practical necessity and moral legitimacy are independent claims. Options A and B conflate beneficial with legitimate — a standard confusion that anarchism's central contribution is separating.

Question 3

Philosophical anarchism holds that because the state is often unjust, citizens are sometimes morally permitted to disobey it.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This misrepresents the position. Philosophical anarchism makes a stronger, categorical claim: NO state has genuine moral authority, not because states are often unjust, but because political authority is structurally incompatible with moral autonomy. The injustice of particular laws is irrelevant to the argument — even a perfectly just law issued by the state cannot be binding in the way authority claims, because complying due to the state's command (rather than independent evaluation) still surrenders autonomy. The position is principled and categorical, not a case-by-case assessment of justice.

Question 4

According to Wolff's autonomy argument, political authority requires citizens to treat state commands as binding because they are state commands — independent of whether citizens judge those commands to be right on independent grounds.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This is precisely how Wolff defines political authority, and it is what makes the conflict with autonomy irreducible. Political authority is not just the claim that the state usually makes good laws (which citizens might evaluate and endorse independently) — it is the claim that the commands create obligations IN VIRTUE OF being state commands, bypassing individual judgment. This is exactly what the duty of moral autonomy forbids: deferring to external command rather than independent evaluation. The conflict is not about content but about the basis for compliance.

Question 5

What is Wolff's autonomy argument, and why does it lead to philosophical anarchism rather than simply demanding a more just or more democratic government?

Model answer: Wolff argues that moral autonomy — the duty to evaluate reasons for action independently and take responsibility for one's own choices — is a categorical moral obligation, not a preference. Political authority claims that its commands are binding IN VIRTUE OF being state commands, independent of each citizen's evaluation. These two claims are structurally incompatible: if you obey because the state commands it (rather than because you judged the command correct), you have surrendered your autonomy. The conflict is categorical, not empirical — it holds for any state, however democratic or just, because the structure of authority always requires deference rather than independent judgment. A better government doesn't resolve this; it still claims the right to bind through command. The implication is philosophical anarchism: no state can possess genuine moral authority.

The philosophical value of the argument is that it isolates WHAT would have to be true for political authority to exist, revealing that nothing ordinary states do can satisfy the requirement. This raises the bar for defenders of political obligation, who must explain what generates the special moral relationship between citizen and state — something stronger than beneficial outcomes, more determinate than implicit consent.