Anarchy in D.C. / Sorin Cucerai's Anarchic Argument

For those of you who have the misfortune of living in or around Washington D.C.: you're about to be in luck:

The Molinari Society will be holding its third annual Symposium in conjunction with the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in Mordor, I mean Washington DC, December 27-30, 2006.

Session 1, 11:15-12:15:
speaker: Matthew MacKenzie (Muhlenberg College)
title: "Exploitation: A Dialectical Anarchist Perspective"

Session 2, 12:15-1:15:
speaker: Geoffrey Allan Plauché (Louisiana State University)
title: "On the Myth of the Founder-Legislator in Political Philosophy"

From Austro-Athenian Empire


Sorin Cucerai, a Roumanian anarchist thinker, has an elaborate discussion of the standard archic argument, as well as his counter, on his article "Aggression and Anarchy". His conclusion is that the principle "aggression against a non-aggressor is morally unacceptable" is more justifiable than the statist principle that "aggression against a non-aggressor is, at least sometimes, morally acceptable." He also discusses why "just so" argument about how the state came to be cannot be justifications for the existence of the state.

In conclusion, any moral principle of aggression is [less justifiable] than the principle of non-aggression against a non-aggressor. Which means that any moral justification of the state based on a principle of aggression is weaker than the moral justification of individualist anarchy. Yet any moral principle can be reformulated in terms of aggression, and/or non-aggression. And if this is so, then the principle of non-aggression against a non-aggressor is the [most justifiable] moral principle. But this principle cannot justify the state. Therefore, any moral justification of the state is weaker than the moral justification of individualist anarchy. As a consequence, the libertarian's right to deny the necessity of the state is - at least in theory - an absolutely undeniable one.