Political Anarchy :: essays research papers

There argon several arguments against philosophical anarchism. Most of the arguments are in line with either the theory that consent is not required or of the theory we have already consented. For the sake of being brief, this essay ordain attempt to refute only the latter of the two. Along with the idea of individual consent is the longstanding, traditional theory of the authority of God. Other arguments follow a less(prenominal) anarchist view and are that of tacit consent and more specifically that of majority consent.The idea that consent is essential for the legitimacy of political authority privy be argued against in many ways. Traditionally, the argument that God gave goernment authority was valid and in accepting religion we accept this as well. If you go up against this order, you rebel against God. It was reason enough for most people to stop questioning such authority. In the last few centuries, however, the idea of personal freedom and independence has shifted mainstr eam persuasion to being skeptical of the religious premise of government. Just because you believe in God doesnt mean that you believe he gives government authority over you. The rising political awareness in our societies is causing many people to wonder how much power our government should really have over us. as yet if the argument of political authority by God still cannot be argued against, then what about those who do not believe in God? are they expected to follow governmental authority alone as everyone else when they do not believe a god gave authority to government? How does on submit that they do and still try to argue that everyone has consented in this way?Next, is the argument of tacit consent. Those upholding this argument say that we consent to government through some save such as voting, paying taxes, or even just by living in its territory. It even goes as far to saying that we consent barely by remaining silent. Does this mean that we consent to something wh en we choose an option that is forced upon us? We have more options than the ones given to us by the government. Its just that they have the power to punish us if we dont choose from their palette of choices. The fact that we plant a choice does not necessarily make it voluntary. Can one say then that if someone believes they make a choice voluntarily it constitutes consent?