Philosophical anarchism claims that states are not legitimate but may still be justified in executing many functions we associate with states, especially punishing those who violate the rights of fellow subjects of the state’s authority. I suggest that one cannot hold both claims simultaneously. I argue that appropriate punishment requires the punisher to have the standing to punish the offender, and that for the state to acquire that standing, it must sit in a legitimating relationship with its…
Read morePhilosophical anarchism claims that states are not legitimate but may still be justified in executing many functions we associate with states, especially punishing those who violate the rights of fellow subjects of the state’s authority. I suggest that one cannot hold both claims simultaneously. I argue that appropriate punishment requires the punisher to have the standing to punish the offender, and that for the state to acquire that standing, it must sit in a legitimating relationship with its subjects. If that’s right, the philosophical anarchist must deny that most states may punish or deny that most states are illegitimate. Either direction compromises the distinctiveness of philosophical anarchism.
