ABSTRACT
Thus far we have dealt only indirectly with the questions that figure most prominently in discussions of political obligation in the tradition of political philosophy. We have limited ourselves to certain logical points concerning the justification of the practice of political obligation qua practice, and we have said very little concerning the time-honored questions of whether, when, and why citizens should (as opposed to can or can be said to) accept and discharge political obligations. Of course our attempts to identify and analyze features of the practice are relevant to answering questions that are more explicitly normative. The latter arise within and concerning the practice and cannot be resolved or even understood apart from an understanding of the practice. It is for this reason that we have been able to suggest, in passing, reasons for thinking that certain influential normative arguments are unsatisfactory. They are unsatisfactory because they are based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the practice.
