Arguments Against Robert Paul's The Defense Of Anarchism

729 Words3 Pages
Name- Abel Kebede Date- 12/02/2017 Course-Philosophy The Defense of Anarchism Anarchism believes in autonomy, self-governance. It regards a state has no right in imposing rules and regulations on individual’s free choice and actions and argue that the individuals have a right to govern themselves. Prominent philosophers who have supported this view are Benjamin Tucker and Henery Thoreau, however, in this essay, I will be arguing against Robert Paul’s the defense of anarchism. Robert Paul's argument can be divided into two parts: the concept of authority and the concept of autonomy. For Paul, authority is the right to command and at the same time, to get obedient. According to Paul, a state is a group of people who have a political authority over a certain population in a certain territory. He viewed autonomy as means of an individual is responsible for his own action, or in simple term, autonomy is self-governance. Paul suggested that there shouldn’t be a set of regulations that we would have to be abiding by. In other words, he regards that men should have autonomy and ruled not by the authority of a small group of people, named a state. However, this notion of state has been criticized because without the state society cannot maintain its peace and order. If there is…show more content…
In a place where no governing law and body exist, the society suffers from crime, confusion, disturbance, conflict, war etc, than prosperity. Broadly speaking, in the society where no state as governing institution, social development and growth shall be hindered and anarchism, economic stagnation and backwardness shall be prevailing over
Open Document