1. On page 91 of article Justifying the State, the author argues "to show that a state emerged by consent would be a very strong form of emergent justification but, by the same token, showing that it did not satisfy this strong standard would be correspondingly weak as a basis for condemnation. In contrast, to show that a state emerged without violating rights would be a relatively weak emergent justification but, by the same token, showing that a state's emergence did not even satisfy this minimal standard would be the basis for a relatively strong condemnation". Is a state emerged by consent or without violating rights?
2. "We can judge a state in terms of how it arose. We can judge states in terms of how well they actually function. Or we can judge them in terms of how well they would function if instantiated. In all three cases, the nature of the justification in question is obvious. The first is emergent. The second is teleological. The third is both teleological and appropriately hypothetical". What is the more appropriate standard to judge a state?