Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Philosophical anarchism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the Politics series on |
 |
|
Theory and practice
Culture
Lists
Related
|
Philosophical anarchism is a form of anarchistic thought which contends that the State lacks moral legitimacy. In other words, there is no individual obligation or duty to obey the State, and conversely, the State has no right to command. Philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the State, thus distinguishing it from anarchism proper. Philosophical anarchism is an essential component of all schools of anarchism, and "is a component especially of individualist anarchism."[1] Philosophical anarchists of historical note include Thomas Jefferson[citation needed], William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Benjamin Tucker. Contemporary figures include John Simmons and Robert Paul Wolff.
Philosophical anarchists may accept the existence of a minimal state as unfortunate, and usually temporary, "necessary evil" but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy.[2] As conceived morally by William Godwin, it requires individuals to act in accordance with their own judgements and to allow every other individual the same liberty; conceived egoistically as by Max Stirner, it implies that 'the unique one' who truly 'owns himself' recognizes no duties to others; within the limit of his might, he does what is right for him.[3]
Rather than throwing bombs or taking up arms to bring down the state, philosophical anarchists "have worked for a gradual change to free the individual from what they thought were the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state and allow all individuals to become self-determining and value-creating."[4] They may oppose the immediate elimination of the state by violent means out of concern that it would be left unsecured against the establishment of a more harmful and oppressive state. This is especially true among those anarchists who consider violence and the state as synonymous, or who consider it counterproductive where public reaction to violence results in increased "law enforcement" efforts.
William Godwin, sometimes considered the founder of philosophical anarchism, believed that government was a "necessary evil" but that it will become increasingly unnecessary and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge. Godwin said,
| “ | Above all we should not forget, that government is an evil, an usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind; and that, however we may be obliged to admit it as a necessary evil for the present, it behoves us, as the friends of reason and the human species, to admit as little of it as possible, and carefully to observe whether, in consequence of the gradual illumination of the human mind, that little may not hereafter be diminished.[5] | ” |
The nineteen century individualist anarchist Victor Yarros also stated a typical philosophical anarchist position when he said,
| “ | The abolition of the external State must be preceded by the decay of the notions which breathe life and vigour into that clumsy monster: in other words, it is only when the people learn to value liberty, and to understand the truths of the anarchistic philosophy, that the question of practically abolishing the State looms up and acquires significance. | ” |
Similarly, philosophical anarchist Henry David Thoreau said
| “ | 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.[6] | ” |
Thomas Jefferson is also sometimes seen as a philosophical anarchist, who said
| “ | Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.[7] | ” |
According to philosophical anarchist John Simmons:
| “ | Philosophical anarchists hold that there are good reasons not to oppose or disrupt at least some kinds of illegitimate states, reasons that oughweigh any right or obligation of opposition. The practical stance with respect to the state, the philosophical anarchist maintains, should be one of careful consideration and thoughtful weighing of all the reasons that bear on action in a particular set of circumstances.[8] | ” |
Philosophical anarchists may not wish to disrupt a particular state, but they do not necessarily think anyone has an obligation to obey the state. According to philosophical anarchist Robert Paul Wolff, there can
| “ | [be no such thing as a government which] has a right to command and whose subjects have a binding obligation to obey.[9] | ” |
- ^ Outhwaite, William & Tourain, Alain (Eds.). (2003). Anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought (2nd Edition, p. 12). Blackwell Publishing
- ^ Klosko, George. Political Obligations. Oxford University Press 2005. p. 4
- ^ Outhwaite, William & Tourain, Alain (Eds.). (2003). Anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought (2nd Edition, p. 12). Blackwell Publishing
- ^ Murphy, Brenda. The Provinceton Platers and the Culture of Modernity. Cambridge University Press 2005. pp. 31-32.
- ^ "William Godwin" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ Wasserman, Louis. Modern Political Philosophies and What They Mean. Haleyon House 1944. p. 120
- ^ Adler, Mortimer Jerome. The Great Ideas. Open Court Publishing 2000. p. 378
- ^ Cited in Wetman, Cristopher Heath. Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? Cambridge University Press. 2005. pp. 24-25.
- ^ Cited in Wolff's Defence of Philosophical Anarchism by Rex Martin. Philosophical Quarterly, Vol 24 No 95, April 1974, p. 141