Abstract

Philosophical anarchists argue that there is no widespread duty to obey the laws of any state. Their primary argument is that few people have bound themselves to obey the law, and that, since people are free and equal, an individual could only have a duty to obey the law if she brought it upon herself. Philosophical anarchists also present counter-examples to this duty and criticize others' attempts to justify it. ;Although support for their position is growing, the philosophical anarchists have not proven their case. Their counter-examples do not rule out an extensive duty to obey the law, and their arguments leave open the possibility that free and equal people could have a non-voluntaristic duty to obey the law. ;Indeed, although previous attempts to justify a duty to obey the law have serious problems , two new strategies, which regard people as free and equal, show some promise for justifying a duty to obey the law that applies to individuals independent of their own actions. The first strategy holds that we must recognize those we live among as having a say over certain matters, and that, regarding these matters, most people say to obey the law. The second strategy holds that our baseline duties are those that everyone would have to honor to make ideal human relations possible. One ideal is that people live together without coercion. Since we can only live good lives free of coercion if we abide by common rules about property, and since our society's common rule is to obey the property laws, we have a duty to obey property laws. While our current circumstances are imperfect, they rarely deviate in ways that would remove this duty. ;Philosophical anarchists also claim that without a duty to obey the law, all states would be illegitimate. Their arguments do not prove this, but leave open the possibility that a state could have some aspects of legitimacy without having them all