Abstract

It is often asserted that a liberal theory of political obligation is unattainable. This is, largely, because liberalism revolves around consent and hence, is supposed to be intrinsically inimical to the existence of state authority. However, there is at least one liberal proposal – the argument of fair play, that makes a plausible case for justifying the establishment of a coercive entity. The most popular contemporary version of it, which is offered by George Klosko, turns on the fact that non-excludable goods cannot be exchanged based on consent. Instead, there must be enforceable, independent, objective standards of fairness that should govern the distribution of the effects of such goods. In this article, I argue that if Klosko’s account is correct, then not only the existence of non-excludable goods but also, the production and exchange of existentially significant excludable goods warrant an establishment of coercive authority. I argue that in this way, we can take an important step towards establishing a full-blown liberal theory of political obligation.