Philosophical anarchism

Philosophical anarchism is an anarchist school of thought which focuses on intellectual criticism of authority, especially political power, and the legitimacy of governments.^[1][2][3] The American anarchist and socialist Benjamin Tucker coined the term philosophical anarchism to distinguish peaceful evolutionary anarchism from revolutionary variants.^[4] Although philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of authority, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey any authority or conversely that the state or any individual has a right to command. Philosophical anarchism is a component especially of individualist anarchism.^[5]

The scholar Michael Freeden identifies four broad types of individualist anarchism. He says the first is the type associated with William Godwin that advocates self-government with a "progressive rationalism that included benevolence to others". The second type is egoism, which is most associated with Max Stirner. The third type is "found in Herbert Spencer's early predictions" and in that of some of his disciples such as Wordsworth Donisthorpe, who foresee in this sense "the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution". The fourth type retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of the market,^[6] having such followers as the American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker^[7] and the green anarchist Henry David Thoreau.^[8]

Philosophical anarchism has met the criticism of members of academia following the release of pro-anarchist books such as A. John Simmons' Moral Principles and Political Obligations (1979).^[13] In The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey (2013), Michael Huemer defends his interpretation of philosophical anarchism^[14] and claims that "political authority is a moral illusion".^[15]

The law professor William A. Edmundson authored an essay arguing against three major philosophical anarchist principles that he finds fallacious. Edmundson claims that the individual does not owe a normal state a duty of obedience, but he considers that not to imply that anarchism is the inevitable conclusion and the state is still morally legitimate.^[16]

Another criticism of philosophical anarchism is that it remains purely theoretical. In failing to act out anarchism in the real world, philosophical anarchism is seen as a bourgeois convenience that actually serves the status quo, rather than destroying it.^[17]