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." One of the earliest criticisms is that anarchism defies and fails to understand the biological inclination to authority. Joseph Raz states that the acceptance of authority implies the belief that following their instructions will afford more success. Raz believes that this argument is true in following both authorities' successful and mistaken instruction. Anarchists reject this criticism because challenging or disobeying authority does not entail the disappearance of its advantages by acknowledging authority such as doctors or lawyers as reliable, nor does it involve a complete surrender of independent judgment. Anarchist perception of human nature, rejection of the state, and commitment to social revolution has been criticised by academics as naive, overly simplistic, and unrealistic, respectively. Classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will lead to human cooperation prospering. Friedrich Engels, considered to be one of the principal founders of Marxism, criticised anarchism's anti-authoritarianism as inherently counter-revolutionary because in his view a revolution is by itself authoritarian. Academic John Molyneux writes in his book Anarchism: A Marxist Criticism that "anarchism cannot win", believing that it lacks the