Philosophical anarchism is an anarchist school of thought that holds that the state lacks moral legitimacy but does not support violence to eliminate it. Though philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the state, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey the state or that the state has a right to command. Philosophical anarchism is a component especially of individualist anarchism. The sholar Michael Freeden identifies four broad types of individualist anarchism. He says the first is the type associated with William Godwin, which advocates self-government with a "progressive rationalism that included benevolence to others". The second type is egoism, most associated with Max Stirner. The third type is "found in Herbert Spencer's early predictions, and in that of some of his disciples such as Donisthorpe, foreseeing the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution." The fourth type retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of the market, having such followers as Benjamin Tucker and Henry David Thoreau.
Variations
Philosophical anarchists may accept the existence of a minimal state as an unfortunate and usually temporary "necessary evil" but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy. As conceived by Godwin, it requires individuals to act in accordance with their own judgments and to allow every other individual the same liberty. Conceived egoistically as by Max Stirner, it implies that the unique one who truly owns himself recognizes no duties to others. Within the limit of his might, he does what is right for him. Rather than taking up arms to bring down the state, philosophical anarchists "have worked for a gradual change to free the individual from what they thought were the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state and allow all individuals to become self-determining and value-creating." They may oppose the immediate elimination of the state by violent means out of concern that what remains might be vulnerable to the establishment of a yet more harmful and oppressive state. That is especially true among anarchists who consider violence and the state as synonymous or consider it counterproductive if public reaction to violence results in increased law enforcement efforts. Many traditionalist conservatives identify themselves as anarchists on account of their opposition to state control, but they support the ordering by rank of social groups such as families, churches, corporations, clubs, and even countries. For that reason, Brian Patrick Mitchell proposes for such conservatives tl be called "akratists," instead of anarchists, because they accept the "archy" of social rank and oppose only the "kratos" of state control in contrast to individualist anarchists, who reject both social "archy" and political "kratos."
