Individual Interest and Political Legitimicy
Criticism of contract theory has always played an important role in Hartmut Kliemt's writings on political philosophy. Notwithstanding his objections to a consent-based justification of the state he has never subscribed to an anarchist position. In Hartmut Kliemt's view, a minimal state which protects the basic liberties of its citizens has to be considered legitimate. The article begins with a brief restatement of the most influential objections that have been raised against the various forms of contract theory. Thereafter interestbased accounts of political legitimacy are critically examined; it is argued that individual interests fail to provide a justification for any kind of political authority. Finally, philosophical anarchism is suggested as a possible alternative to contract theory and interest theory. Although philosophical anarchism holds that no state has a moral right to rule, it can be reconciled with the view that it is in the individual's interest to create and maintain a minimal state.
Volume (Year): 0 (2009)
Issue (Month): 19 (November)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 069 154008-0
Web page: http://www.frankfurt-school-verlag.de/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rmm:journl:v:0:y:2009:i:19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Friederike Pförtner)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.