Writing that legal studies report about "In Defense of Anarchism" by Wolff.

So I don't get why Wolff keeps erecting this barrier between what counts as a good moral justification of state authority on the one side and the huge practical consequences of state authority on the other. PS120 made a pretty persuasive argument that anarchic life would be (and was) nasty, brutish, and short. Doesn't sound good to me. Seems like a legitimate reason to . . . have state authority! But Wolff says it's irrelevant.

I know I'm oversimplifying and missing something here, I just don't know what. Yet. This pattern of divorcing consequences from moral evaluation is much of what's stymying my understanding of legal philosophy in general. That's why I gravitate towards utilitarianism, where moral legitimacy and real-world effect are directly related. Wherefore do you cleave the two, kantian-based philosophers?? I am trying hard to follow your reasoning, but success in doing that may require more sleep and less midterm-ing.

Also, Wolff anticipated my confusion of political philosophy with political science, by explicitly defining the former as normative and the latter as descriptive. So anarchism probably means something different in one versus the other. I think the philosophy version is much tamer than that all-caps, RED, alcatraz-y font on the cover of the book suggests. Thanks for nothing, font.