The Problem of Political Authority

1. Political Authority is an Illusion

Governments are considered ethically permitted to do things that no nongovernmental person or organization may do.

Special Moral Status. Governments claim a unique moral status, allowing them to coerce citizens in ways that would be considered wrong for any other entity. This perceived authority is not based on the actions themselves, but on the belief that the government is a special kind of agent. This belief is the core of political authority, which includes both the right to rule (legitimacy) and the obligation to obey (political obligation).

Coercion is Key. The need for an account of political legitimacy arises from the moral significance of coercion and the coercive nature of government. Governments use physical force or the threat of it to enforce laws, collect taxes, and maintain order. This coercion requires justification, as it would be considered wrong if performed by a non-governmental agent.

Five Conditions of Authority. The ordinary conception of political authority includes five conditions: generality (applies to all citizens), particularity (specific to a territory), content-independence (not tied to specific laws), comprehensiveness (regulates a broad range of activities), and supremacy (highest human authority). These conditions are what defenders of authority would like to defend, but no plausible theory can accommodate all of them.

2. The Social Contract is a Myth

We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves her.

Explicit Consent is Absent. The traditional social contract theory posits an agreement between citizens and the state, where citizens agree to obey in exchange for protection. However, no such explicit contract exists; no one has ever been presented with a contract to sign. The idea of an original, explicit agreement is a historical myth.

Implicit Consent is Invalid. The theory of implicit consent suggests that citizens agree to the social contract through their actions, such as accepting benefits, remaining in the country, or participating in the political process. However, these actions do not constitute valid consent because:

• There is no reasonable way to opt out without sacrificing rights.
• Explicit dissent is ignored.
• The state imposes its rules regardless of individual actions.
• The state does not recognize any mutual obligation to the individual.

Contractual Obligation is Absent. The state officially renounces any obligations toward individuals, as demonstrated by court cases where the state is not held liable for failing to protect citizens. This lack of mutual obligation invalidates the social contract.

3. Hypothetical Consent Fails to Justify Authority

Hypothetical consent is valid only when actual consent is unavailable, and the hypothetical consent is consistent with the parties’ actual philosophical beliefs and values.

Hypothetical Consent is Insufficient. Hypothetical social contract theory argues that citizens would consent to the state under certain hypothetical conditions. However, hypothetical consent is only valid when actual consent is impossible and consistent with actual values. These conditions are not met in the case of the state.

Reasonableness Does Not Equal Obligation. Some argue that hypothetical agreement shows that a political arrangement is reasonable. However, the reasonableness of a contract does not make it obligatory for parties to accept it nor render it permissible to force parties to do so.

Rawls's Theory Fails. Even John Rawls's influential hypothetical social contract theory, which uses a "veil of ignorance" to ensure fairness, cannot establish political authority. There is no reason to think that agreement could be reached in Rawls’s hypothetical scenario, and even if it could, the fairness of a contract does not make it obligatory for parties to accept it nor make it permissible to force parties to do so.

4. Democracy Does Not Confer Authority

In common-sense morality, majority will does not generate obligations to comply or entitlements to coerce.

Majority Rule is Not Authority. The democratic process, even when ideal, does not confer authority on its outcomes. Majority will does not generate obligations to comply or entitlements to coerce. The fact that a majority supports a law does not make it morally binding on those who disagree.

Deliberative Democracy is Unrealistic. The idea of deliberative democracy, where citizens engage in reasoned debate to reach consensus, is a fantasy. No actual society satisfies the conditions for ideal deliberation, and even if they did, it would not ground authority. No deliberative process suffices to erase individuals’ rights against coercion.

Equality Does Not Justify Coercion. The argument that political obligation arises from an obligation to support equality and respect others' judgment is flawed. It is either absurdly demanding or too weak to generate political obligations. The state treats citizens as inferiors by forcing them to obey its will.

5. Consequentialism and Fairness Fall Short

An individual’s obedience has no impact on the state’s ability to provide key social benefits.

Consequentialism Fails. Consequentialist arguments for political obligation, which claim that we must obey the state to promote certain goods, fail because an individual's obedience has no impact on the state's ability to provide key social benefits. The argument that it would be bad if everyone disobeyed is also flawed.

Fairness is Not Enough. The fairness theory of political obligation, which argues that disobedience is unfair to other citizens, also fails. Obedience has no connection with the state's ability to provide crucial benefits, and those who disagree with a policy do not act unfairly in refusing to cooperate with it.

Legitimacy is Not Justified. Consequentialist arguments can only justify a narrow range of correct policies, not the comprehensive, content-independent, and supreme authority that the state claims. The state cannot justify its actions merely by claiming that they are necessary to achieve great goods.

6. Psychology Explains Our Belief in Authority

The common belief in authority is the product of nonrational biases. Belief in authority is socially harmful.

Milgram Experiments. The Milgram experiments demonstrate that people are surprisingly willing to obey authority figures, even when ordered to inflict harm on others. This shows that belief in authority is very dangerous and that people have a strong pro-authority bias.

Cognitive Dissonance and Social Proof. People may rationalize their obedience to the state by devising theories of authority, and they are biased toward commonly held beliefs and the practices of their own society. The state employs symbols, rituals, and authoritative language to create an emotional and aesthetic sense of its own power and authority.

Stockholm Syndrome. Ordinary citizens are prone to Stockholm Syndrome, emotionally bonding with their captors (the state). This may be a defensive mechanism, developing when one is under the power of another who poses a serious threat, one cannot escape, the captor shows some signs of mercy, and one is isolated from the outside world.

7. A Society Without Authority is Possible

We have derived libertarian conclusions from common sense morality rather than from any controversial theoretical assumptions.

Policy Implications. If there is no authority, legal moralism and paternalism are unjustified. Laws motivated by rent-seeking are obviously unjustified, and immigration restrictions are unjustified. Laws that protect individual rights are justified. Taxation is justified only if voluntary methods of government finance prove unworkable.

Aid to the Poor. The case of aid to the poor does not support political authority, since the state would still have no greater rights than a private citizen. Government social programs bear more similarity to a practice of mugging people to collect money for charity than to a case of forcing a stranger to save a drowning child.

Implications for Citizens and Agents. Government employees should refuse to implement unjust laws. Private citizens are justified in civil disobedience and should evade punishment when possible. Violent resistance is usually unjustified. Juries should nullify unjust laws.

8. The Logic of Predation Applies to Government

Constitutional democracy with separation of powers is much better than totalitarianism, but it does not eliminate political predation.

Hobbesian Argument is Flawed. Hobbes argued that anarchy would be a state of war of all against all, but that a single absolute ruler would create peace. However, it is normally prudentially irrational to start fights with others, even in the absence of government.

Predation in Totalitarian States. Absolute rulers have little cause to care about their subjects’ rights or welfare and often commit horrible abuses.

Predation Under Democracy. In a democracy, the majority may oppress the minority. The government may ignore the rights and interests of nonvoters. Voters tend to be politically ignorant and irrational. It is not in the government’s interests to solve social problems. The government cannot be trusted to enforce the constitution against itself.

9. Private Security Can Protect Individuals

Privatization of the protection industry would result in higher quality with lower costs and fewer undesired side effects than the governmental system provides.

Protection Agencies. In an ungoverned society, competing security agencies would provide protection from crime. Disputes would be resolved through competing arbitration firms. This system differs from traditional government in that it relies on voluntary relationships and meaningful competition among security providers.

Conflict Between Protectors. Since violence is extremely costly, security agencies would seek peaceful means of resolving disputes. Most people are strongly opposed both to committing murder and to being shot at. Warlike security agencies would therefore have difficulty retaining employees.

Protection for Criminals. Protection of ordinary people is more profitable than protection of criminals. In contrast, there is little to stop a government from protecting criminals rather than their victims.

10. Private Justice Can Resolve Disputes

Privatization of the legal system would result in higher quality, lower costs, and fewer defects in general than government-based legal systems provide.

Integrity of Arbitrators. Arbitration firms would depend on a reputation for fairness and wisdom to attract customers. Businesses do not gain greater profits by making unreasonable demands in regard to dispute resolution mechanisms.

Obeying Arbitrators. Protection agencies would refuse to protect clients who reject arbitration. Agencies would refuse to protect clients who violate arbitration judgments.

Source of Law. Law is best made through contracts and by judges rather than by a legislature. The anarchist justice system would focus on restitution rather than punishment.

Quality of Justice. In the present system, many people are wrongly convicted. Too many laws are made. Governmental justice systems are unreasonably expensive and time-consuming. Imprisonment leads to prisoner abuse and high rates of recidivism.

11. War and Societal Defense Without Government

A governmental military is not necessary for security and may actually increase our danger.

Nongovernmental Defense. An anarchic society has plausible means of defense against foreign invaders, including guerrilla warfare and nonviolent resistance. An invading army would face large costs in conquering and establishing government in an ungoverned territory.

Avoiding Conflict. Most wars are caused by disputes between governments. These could be avoided by not having a government. Military preparation does not prevent war. It increases the risk of war.

Avoiding Terrorism. Terrorism almost always occurs in retaliation for government actions. The best way to avoid terrorism is to eschew policies that provoke it, rather than attempting to incapacitate all potential terrorists.

Dangers of National Security. Maintenance of a standing army creates a risk that one’s government will commit unjust aggression. Governmental militaries pose a risk of destroying the human species.

12. Anarchy is Attainable Through Gradual Change

Authority is illusory. Society can function without government. Anarchy is attainable.

Against Presentist Bias. Radical social changes have occurred in the past and will probably occur more quickly in the future.

Steps Toward Anarchy. A society could approach the privatization of the justice system by delegating certain court cases to private arbitrators. The move toward privatization of police functions is also under way. The end of standing armies may come about through a global cultural shift and a gradual ratcheting down of military forces.

Geographical Spread of Anarchy. Anarchy is most likely to begin in small countries or parts of countries. If the results were promising, the idea would spread. The eventual arrival of anarchy is plausible due to the long-run tendency of human knowledge to progress and to the influence of ideas on the structure of society.

Last updated: January 26, 2025