After interest in normative political philosophy resurged in the Anglo-American world upon the publication of John Rawls A Theory of Justice. Robert Paul Wolff made pointed criticisms of it from a roughly Marxist perspective. In 1977, he (Wolff) published Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice, which takes aim at the extent to which Rawls’s theory is cued to existing practice, convention, and status quo social science.
Wolff’s 1970 book In Defense of Anarchism is widely read (and still taught), and the first two editions sold more than 200,000 copies. It argues that if we accept a robust conception of individual autonomy, then there can be no “de jure” legitimate state. Wolff was praised for this work, including, to his surprise, by many on the political right, such as right-wing libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. Many of the contemporary responses to this book from the political right are still worth reading.
The above from Wiki … but close enough for discussion. 
- " I did have a test today. That wasn’t silliness. It’s on European socialism. I mean really, what’s the point. I’m not European. I don’t plan on being European, so who gives a crap if they’re socialists. They could be fascist anarchists and it still wouldn’t change the fact that I don’t own a car." - Ferris Bueller
… speaking of censorship … The Giza bot changed the quote from the film. It changed “b_ _ l _ _ _ t” to silliness. INGSOC is alive and well in Giza. Seriously, I was under the impression we were all adults here.