This book addresses a substantive normative issue of contemporary political theory, the issue of political legitimacy, critiquing the mainstream approach of justificatory liberalism and offering an alternative reconstructed from neo-Calvinist social thought, a rich source of insights that might be applied to other issues within political theory.

This book addresses a substantive normative issue of contemporary political theory, the issue of political legitimacy, critiquing the mainstream approach of justificatory liberalism and offering an alternative reconstructed from neo-Calvinist social thought, a rich source of insights that might be applied to other issues within political theory.

According to justificatory liberalism legal coercion is legitimate only when exercised for reasons that all reasonable persons can accept. That is, laws are legitimate only if they satisfy JL’s unanimity condition. This principle entails that if no law meets the unanimity condition, then no law is legitimate. However, given the diversity of persons who meet JL’s own twofold criteria of ‘reasonable’ – commitment to fair cooperation and recognition of reasonable pluralism – no law would be supported by all reasonable persons (...) in JL’s thought experiment, let alone in the real world. I illustrate this diversity of qualified views with an objector inspired by Michael Bakunin, whose revolutionary anarchist views take the state to threaten more than protect equality and pluralism. Therefore, JL would prohibit any use of legal coercion. Nothing would be justified by JL. This result clearly conflicts with commonsense, which recognizes many instances of legal coercion as legitimate even amidst disagreement, and calls into question JL’s plausibility. (shrink)