Microcrédit Brésil

Gans, C. (1992) Philosophical anarchism and political disobedience. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-93.

Divided in two parts.
Chapter 2: ''Critical Anarchists" --> no good argument to show that we have PO. But he explained that indeed we can find 4 arguments which are good enough: fairness, negative consequences of disobedience, the duty to support just institutions and from communal obligations.

= These arguments are complementary.

• Fairness:

Importance of the link btw argument of fairness and negative consequences of disobedience.
Fairness = the fact that someone who has received goods as a result of others' activities must pay their price even if he or she did not order them.     --> we can also consider it as an argument of distributive justice.

John Rawls - the principle of fairness

John Simmons claimed that if people willingly consume given benefits, then fairness requires that they pay for them, even if they haven't consented to such an arrangement in advance

This is why he claims that fairness can be a source of obligation, independently of consent.

But Simmons: the duty to obey the law cannot be based on fairness is grounded since when will goods product through other cooperation, which we consume without having chosen to do so, count as goods which we wish to consume?

If we have been forced to use this goods, why would we pay for it?

Principle of fairness sets out to prevent the possibility of free rides and exploitation

• The argument from consequences:

--> The duty to obey the law follows directly from the negative consequences disobedience causes to society and to the quality of of life within it.

1. The duty to obey the law is superfluous/useless for the prevention of undesirable consequences following from acts of disobedience = le devoir d'obeir a la loi n'est d'aucune maniere lier a la prevention des actes ou aux consequences de la desobeissance.

# We have to think about the law as a tool for the institution and mainenance of various ordered forms of conduct. Law products some goods which are security and stability. Disobeying any law may damage this good.

1. The present argument cannot justify the duty to perform all of the acts ordained by law.

# Make the difference btw actions which are inherently bad, and those which are bad because it is prohibited.
Difference between someone who kills someone else and someone who doesn’t pay his taxes.

Reason why disobedience can't work:
- It is going to undermine the expectations of witnesses that the law will indeed function as a tool of the type described

- Matter of fairness: fairness requires obedience of all beneficiaries. Disobedience undermines the fairness of the distribution of goods and burdens, and thus means exploitation of those who obey. '

= Disobedience engender therefore disobedience and this is a real pb.

Raz explain therefore that the duty to obey the law must be universal.

• The duty to support just institutions:

In A Theory of Justice by  J. Rawls - the duty to obey the law is based on "the natural duty to justice".
--> "First, we are to comply with and to do our share in just institutions when they exist and apply to us; and second we are to assist, at least when this can be done with little cost to ourselves".

When will institution count as applying to us? - if the answer depend upon our decision, this means that we have consented to the institution. (p. 78)

...