Is There a Duty to Obey the Law?
Christopher Wellman, John Simmons, Commonwealth Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Law A John Simmons
Cambridge University Press, Jul 25, 2005 - Law - 200 pages
The central question in political philosophy is whether political states have the right to coerce their constituents and whether citizens have a moral duty to obey the commands of their state. Christopher Heath Wellman and A. John Simmons defend opposing answers to this question. Wellman bases his argument on Samaritan obligations to perform easy rescues. Simmons counters that this, and all other attempts to explain our duty to obey the law, will fail.
What people are saying - Write a review
The 'anarchist's rejoinder' sets up a straw man. The REAL anarchist's rejoinder, when someone starts waffling about how States can act as arbiters, states can defend rights, an so on, is
SHOW ME A LARGE-SCALE 'TOTAL' WAR THAT WAS NOT FOUGHT BETWEEN TWO STATES.
States make large-scale, wide-area, massively-destructive wars; modern wars killed tens of millions of civilians in the 20th century, while laying the groundwork for the systematic reduction in civil liberties (no passports before 1914... passports after 1918). Anarchism could never produce a battleship or an ICBM - they are loss-makers from go to whoa.
The State is also - always and everywhere - peopled by the most vile, the most corrupt, and the most megalomaniacal scum ever to issue from a womb.
Give me voluntary relationships (in which people would be completely free to form associations and fund themselves without coercing anyone else), with DRO's as outlined by Molyneux... I will take that over paying 50 cents in the dollar to have those rights that a political parasite chooses to recognise, defended at others' expense.