T: Essays on Anarchism
Are they expected to follow governmental authority just as everyone else when they do not believe a god gave authority to government? How does on reconcile that they do and still try to argue that everyone has consented in this way?
In the last few centuries, however, the idea of personal freedom and independence has shifted mainstream thinking 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.
Rousseau said To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man. More questions must be asked on the validity of the arguments and more research is to be done on the practicality of them.
Robert Nozick, in his essay, The Minimal State, mentions that if one could prove that the state would be better than a non-state, and if the state arose by a process involving no morally impermissible steps, then that state would be justified.
There are 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.
The rising political awareness in our societies is causing many people to wonder how much power our government should really have over us. Even if the argument of political authority by God still cannot be argued against, then what about those who do not believe in God?
That depends on if the representative has the time to listen to us and if they agree with our point of view. Is this a realistic way of trying to change our options?