Sure, the author says as much and linked to the article you also linked. Wolff makes the better read and shows philosophical rigor in his working, for example, extracting and spelling out concise premises and conclusions. Now I have a hunch that the author is not an native English speaker, which certainly could explain some less convincing sentences.
But unlike Wolff, the author covers too much ground. Wolff limits his scope to Kant's works and esp. Kant's theory of justice, and excludes the seminal works on social contracts by other authors (which would IMO have impact on Wolff's conclusions) and acknowledges that fact, e.g. immediately in the title of his essay. The author does no such thing.
I respect the author, I myself had an infatuation with Illich and Mühsam in my punk years, but I still think that if you want to make broad claims, you have to have broad knowledge. The exclusion of, e.g. existentialist or other political and moral philosophers, makes the purview too narrow for such a broad conclusion. Aother viable approach -- working from first principles -- is also nowhere in sight. It's like saying "I don't like ice cream" after having only tasted Smurf and Big Red flavor.
But unlike Wolff, the author covers too much ground. Wolff limits his scope to Kant's works and esp. Kant's theory of justice, and excludes the seminal works on social contracts by other authors (which would IMO have impact on Wolff's conclusions) and acknowledges that fact, e.g. immediately in the title of his essay. The author does no such thing.
I respect the author, I myself had an infatuation with Illich and Mühsam in my punk years, but I still think that if you want to make broad claims, you have to have broad knowledge. The exclusion of, e.g. existentialist or other political and moral philosophers, makes the purview too narrow for such a broad conclusion. Aother viable approach -- working from first principles -- is also nowhere in sight. It's like saying "I don't like ice cream" after having only tasted Smurf and Big Red flavor.