text: Anarchists reject these criticisms by arguing that humans in a state of nature would not just be in a state of war.Anarcho-primitivists in particular argue that humans were better off in a state of nature in small tribes living close to the land, while anarchists in general argue that the negatives of state organization, such as hierarchies, monopolies and inequality, outweigh the benefits.Philosophy lecturer Andrew G.Fiala composed a list of common arguments against anarchism which includes critiques such as that anarchism is innately related to violence and destruction, not only in the pragmatic world, such as at protests, but in the world of ethics as well.Secondly, anarchism is evaluated as unfeasible or utopian since the state cannot be defeated practically.This line of arguments most often calls for political action within the system to reform it.The third argument is that anarchism is self-contradictory as a ruling theory that has no ruling theory.Anarchism also calls for collective action whilst endorsing the autonomy of the individual, hence no collective action can be taken.Lastly, Fiala mentions a critique towards philosophical anarchism of being ineffective (all talk and thoughts) and in the meantime capitalism and bourgeois class remains strong.Philosophical anarchism has met the criticism of members of academia following the release of pro-anarchist books such as A.John Simmons' Moral Principles and Political Obligations.Law professor William A.Edmundson authored an essay to argue against three major philosophical anarchist principles which he finds fallacious.Edmundson says that while the individual does not owe the state a duty of obedience, this does not imply that anarchism is the inevitable conclusion and the state is still morally legitimate.In The Problem of Political Authority, Michael Huemer defends philosophical anarchism, claiming that "political authority is a moral illusion.