RESPONSE PAPERS

Submitted by

NARAYANA M

Reg. No. BA0180025

BA.LLB.(Hons)

Name of the Guidance

Mr.Rahul Hemrajini,
Assistant Professor
POLITICAL SCIENCE-II

POLITICAL OBLIGATION

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 027
 The Response on Alieanage Mechanism

Premise 1: Resident alien are the people who does not consents with government.

Premise 2: Both Consenters and Non consenters will get major benefits from the government.

Conclusion: Resident alien will get the major benefits from the government.

It is the problem faced by the state and the government about what to do with the non
consenters in the society. The theory says that non consenters do not have the political
obligations in state, thus giving them the fewer privileges given from full citizenship. But the
consenters and non consenters both get the major benefit of the government in the society
which is not acceptable. Then why the people have to consent the state and have to live under
its jurisdiction. We can also live as the non consenters like not consenting to the state. The
non consenters do not have any political obligation then why the state should give them the
benefits. The resident aliens at home said by Walzer, they do have the central political
obligations to obey the law and the state will provide them the military facilities, the
consenters also been provide with the same facilities, then what is the difference between
them, all can become non consenters in society because the burden is shared only by the
consenters not the non consenters.

The problem faced here is the non consenters do not bound to the law or the obligations
prescribed in the state yet they are given the same benefits as of consenters. According to the
premise one the resident aliens are the citizens who are not consent with the nation’s law and
they have fewer privileges in the society whereas the other people are considered as the
consenters who obey the law and follow all rules and regulations abide the law. They are the
one who pay the taxes for the military services which only provided at the time of the
national security purposes. Though the non consenters does not have political obligation yet
they have limited privileges of the military and police services.

Then the second premise says that the both class people have the same benefits from the
government. But the consenters are paying the tax and the non consenters didn’t pay and yet
they to enjoy their benefits. Then burden lies on the consenters. It can be illustrate with the
example, if A is a public who pays the road tax and B is a person who doesn’t pay the tax and
they both travel in the same road and A is having the burden to pay the tax and B doesn’t
have that burden. Where according to the Walzer, they resident aliens can have the military
services when the society is in the dangerous situation. Then how they can have the major
benefits, as previously in the reading of Klosko, he said that the non consenters have the
minimal rights will be given and they can’t enjoy other privileges in the society. But in the
alienage mechanism, they have the benefits. So then they all must be tacitly consent to the
government and they also must become the citizen of the state or the people here must leave
the country as those who doesn’t consent to the state, which is the consent and leave. The
argument is that why the government must provide the benefits to them. If the benefits are
given to the non consenters they are indirectly or tacitly being consented so they can’t deny
that they are not consented to the state as they must obey the law and must also pay the taxes
so that the burden of the consenters is being reduced or if they don’t considered it as consent
to the state then they must leave the state or not to stay under the jurisdiction of the state.

My opinion is that the people whom all in the society are dependent on the one another and
we must consent with each other in order to gain the common benefits for the society and if
one consent and other doesn’t consent with the law, what is use of the law to be established in
the society. It truly works when the people are consented with the law of the land. If the
consent doesn’t work out we all would be in the state of nature where there is no restrictions
and it is a stateless nature where we no need to form the consent with any society which lead
to the consent and leave argument. So the non consenters must either have the option to
consent with the state or they have to leave the state. If they are not accepted with it then they
have to opt for the benefits deprivations schemes which are the only alternative consent you
can have in the society.
 RESPONSE ON DEFENSE OF ANARCHISM

The concept of political philosophy written by Robert P. Wolff, explains about the how the
state authority is different from the individual autonomy. In which he said “authority is right
to command and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. There raises the question which tells
that if the people in the state should also obey the unjust laws which is not beneficial for the
people. Then how the people will think the state is for the purpose which to serve the peoples
wish and not to suppress them. Then the people will decide to follow their own instincts in
order to determine what is just and unjust. If this happens then how we can say that the state
is for the betterment for the people. The argument made by the Wolff is opposed in the view
of this argument which tells that the peoples autonomy is better and they all are the ones who
decide what is good for them as the individuals but whether these type of decision are let
under the control of the people will be benefit for the state or the state can be governed like
this, it is a great question but in fact the answer to this question can lead to the two ways, the
first is the people have to obey and the next is about the individuals autonomy lead to
anarchism. The first one may be explained as the authority is the state which has the
sovereign power over the people who are governed under it and has the experience that the
individual people in the society. It always selects the right thing to be done in the state which
must be benefit for the people. But it may or may not satisfy the inserts of every people as the
individual but makes the decisions which are benefited at the large. But the argument further
made in the autonomy doesn’t support the utility which is benefit for the majority people.
Though it is invalid the state has the power to which is commend the people which tells them
to obey in order to survive in the state and acquire the benefits. As it argues for the individual
will as the most important which the state cannot concentrate on the individual yet the people
have their own right or the beneficial schemes for their selfish interest. Yet it must provide
the similar schemes as the people are obeyed by the state’s authority and they should get
some benefits. But this argument can lead us to the fair play obligation as the state gives the
benefits which may be benefit people and in the return the people must obey the state.
Whether it satisfies the individuals wishes, we don’t know but is it is done partly the some
may arose that the state is unjust for then and leads the people to think what they do is correct
and the reference to it the individual has the choice which he may think it is correct and he is
obliged to his own choice which is the individual autonomy. If all the individual arise like
this then it leads to the anarchy system of the government. But the problem is that this type of
the government doesn’t exist or impossible to exist. As it leads to the destruction of the state,
for example if the person thinks that the killing is the moral act which is right to be done in
order to possess the property of other. But according to the law killing is the immoral act and
must not be done under the law and it protects us in the just system of the state. Though the
anarchism sounds pretty supportive it may lead to the mass destruction of the state. So we
must follow the state but only it is just and doesn’t mean that we must not follow and rebel
against the state and form anarchism but we can cooperatively bring changes in the state and
we can make the state the beneficial as it is made for the people like us and we have the
power to rule over it and make the decisions. It can be done by the major political right is the
vote which is the major thing to change a state from just to unjust and vice versa. If the
people are selfless and then they are interested in the bring up of the wish of the majority
people we must see the person who is standing is the right person who can change the state
into the good and the just system. When the people of the likeminded are elected in the state
then the state can have the just syatem and they have the authority over the large person who
is followed and not objected then there is no need of the individual’s autonomy to be focused
on as it is concentrated equally on the each person in the state. By this way the authority can
be followed in the state.