Review of A. John Simmons, On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society

Abstract

Political relationships are morally legitimate only when they result from voluntary, intentional, and informed acts of consent. This commitment to political voluntarism necessitates that rights and obligations within a political society cannot be inherited or forced but must be actively accepted by individuals. Standard justifications for state authority, such as tacit consent or hypothetical contracts, fail to meet these requirements because they do not sufficiently engage the individual will. A rigorous application of these principles suggests that most contemporary states lack moral legitimacy and that few citizens possess genuine political obligations. Within this framework, the state is not a naturally occurring entity but an artificial arrangement that remains subject to the moral constraints of the state of nature. This leads to a position of philosophical anarchism, where the state’s claim to a monopoly on force and territorial sovereignty is viewed with skepticism. Membership and citizenship are understood as specific moral relationships rather than universal statuses, potentially leading to a radical cosmopolitanism in which resource access and territorial entry are not strictly regulated by state-defined boundaries. The foundation of these rights rests upon the preservation of mankind and the moral prohibition against treating persons as mere means. – AI-generated abstract.