Within political philosophy, philosophical anarchists have argued that states and their authority are illegitimate. What this means is that political obligation is not morally sound, and that states do not possess a moral right to authority. Various approaches to philosophical anarchism have been developed, all claiming to effectively demonstrate the illegitimacy of states. However, upon closer analysis, some of the most influential philosophical anarchist arguments seem to be lacking in crucial respects, and as such, fail to demonstrate the illegitimacy of states. These shortcomings,
however, do not entail that philosophical anarchism itself is necessarily false, only that current approaches fail to fully appreciate all of the relevant considerations when evaluating state legitimacy. Participationism offers the philosophical anarchist with a means to effectively argue for the illegitimacy of states, while sharing none of the shortcomings of other approaches. Developing and analyzing such an approach will be the goal of this thesis.