ABSTRACT
This chapter applies a form of moral pluralism to a problem in political philosophy: the problem of political obligation. The general idea is that rational solutions appeal to ideas of self-interest to ground political obligations, reciprocity solutions appeal to ideas of fair exchange, while reasonable solutions appeal to ideas of justice. Rational theories and reciprocal theories cannot normally be expected to yield reasonable outcomes, even though sometimes accidentally they might. The burden of proof assumption underlies the methodology of those who have been termed 'critical philosophical anarchists'. Different traditional arguments are used in mutual support, as if they are premises in a more complex single argument, as in the example of Gans use of Rawls and communitarianism. It is not obvious that uniformity has any fundamental philosophical justification, its political advantages seem undeniable. There are branches of government that supply means of protection for citizens, from each other and from external threat: the police, the law courts and the army.
