IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v23y2024i1p47-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The moral benefits of coercion: A defense of ideal statism

Author

Listed:
  • Naima Chahboun

Abstract

This paper contributes to recent discussions on ideal anarchism vs. ideal statism. I argue, contra ideal anarchists, that coercive state institutions would be justified even in a society populated by morally perfect individuals. My defense of ideal statism is novel in that it highlights the moral benefits of state coercion. Rather than the practical effects on individual compliance or the distributive outcomes that follow therefrom, coercive state institutions are justified through the moral benefits they provide. The state is morally beneficial because it a) lessens the demands on the will that fall on agents under ideal anarchism, and b) counters the structural domination that follows from differences in natural endowments. By shifting the focus of the debate from feasibility to desirability, the paper exposes the flaws of ideal anarchism and provides new insights into the moral value of the state.

Suggested Citation

  • Naima Chahboun, 2024. "The moral benefits of coercion: A defense of ideal statism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 23(1), pages 47-66, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:23:y:2024:i:1:p:47-66
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231178500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X231178500
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X231178500?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colin Farrelly, 2007. "Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 844-864, December.
    2. Colin Farrelly, 2007. "Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 844-864, December.
    3. Andrew Lister, 2020. "Reconsidering the reciprocity objection to unconditional basic income," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(3), pages 209-228, August.
    4. White, Stuart, 2003. "The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198295051.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Wiens, 2016. "Assessing ideal theories," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(2), pages 132-149, May.
    2. Christmas Billy, 2020. "The Neoliberal Turn: Libertarian Justice and Public Policy," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 26(1), pages 1-031, June.
    3. Mohammed Hossain & Yasean A. Tahat & Naser AbuGhazaleh, 2024. "Unlocking the Sustainable Workplace Equality Policy (SWEP): Evidence from an Emerging Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Lea Ypi, 2010. "On the Confusion between Ideal and Non‐ideal in Recent Debates on Global Justice," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(3), pages 536-555, June.
    5. Åsbjørn Melkevik, 2019. "A Theory of Business Eunomics: The Means–Ends Relation in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 293-305, November.
    6. Aviezer Tucker, 2012. "Scarce justice," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(1), pages 76-96, February.
    7. Peter Jones & Ian O’Flynn, 2013. "Can a compromise be fair?," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 115-135, May.
    8. Brian Kogelmann, 2020. "The future of political philosophy: Non-ideal and west of babel," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 237-252, March.
    9. Anders Molander & Gaute Torsvik, 2013. "Getting People into Work: What (if Anything) Can Justify Mandatory Activation of Welfare Recipients?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4317, CESifo.
    10. Mumbunan, Sonny & Maitri, Ni Made Rahayu, 2022. "A Review of Basic Income for Nature and Climate," OSF Preprints bre43, Center for Open Science.
    11. Casassas David, 2008. "Basic Income and the Republican Ideal: Rethinking Material Independence in Contemporary Societies," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-7, January.
    12. Andrew Lister, 2017. "Markets, desert, and reciprocity," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 16(1), pages 47-69, February.
    13. Edward A. Page, 2007. "Fairness on the Day after Tomorrow: Justice, Reciprocity and Global Climate Change," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(1), pages 225-242, March.
    14. Pateman Carole, 2008. "Why Republicanism?," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-6, January.
    15. Andrew Lister, 2020. "Reconsidering the reciprocity objection to unconditional basic income," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(3), pages 209-228, August.
    16. José Luis Rey Pérez, 2018. "¿Cómo garantizar el derecho al trabajo? La alterantiva de la renta básica," Revista de Economia Critica, Asociacion de Economia Critica, vol. 26, pages 51-65.
    17. White Stuart, 2006. "Reconsidering the Exploitation Objection to Basic Income," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-17, December.
    18. repec:bpj:bistud:v:8:y:2013:i:1:p:147-151:n:9 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Ruth L Healey, 2014. "Gratitude and Hospitality: Tamil Refugee Employment in London and the Conditional Nature of Integration," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 614-628, March.
    20. Prabhakar Rajiv, 2018. "Are Basic Capital Versus Basic Income Debates Too Narrow?," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-6, June.
    21. Perri 6, 2005. "Should We Be Compelled to Have Identity Cards? Justifications for the Legal Enforcement of Obligations," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(2), pages 243-261, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:23:y:2024:i:1:p:47-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.