What is Robert Paul Wolff’s argument in his book “In Defence of Anarchism”? Do you agree/disagree with his argument? Why/Why not?

Robert Paul Wolff's argument in his book "In Defence of Anarchism" is centered around the conflict between authority and autonomy. He argues that the concept of authority, particularly state authority, is incompatible with the principle of individual autonomy, which he defines as the right of individuals to govern themselves.

Wolff's argument is structured in three parts. First, he discusses the nature of authority, defining it as the right to command and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. He then moves on to discuss the concept of autonomy, which he defines as the state of being self-governed.

In the second part of his argument, Wolff discusses the conflict between authority and autonomy. He argues that a person who is autonomous cannot be subjected to the will of another, and therefore, cannot be under the authority of another.

In the third and final part of his argument, Wolff discusses the implications of this conflict. He argues that since authority and autonomy cannot coexist, one must choose between them. Wolff chooses autonomy, thus defending anarchism.

As an AI, I don't have personal beliefs or opinions. However, I can tell you that some people might agree with Wolff's argument because they value individual freedom and autonomy over the structure and order that authority provides. On the other hand, others might disagree with Wolff's argument because they believe that authority, particularly state authority, is necessary for maintaining social order and preventing chaos.