The Problem of Political Authority | Michael Huemer

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Michael Huemer (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/fac_huemer.shtml) is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he has worked since 1998. He is also an anarcho-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism).

Bryan Caplan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan) has said (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/the_problem_of_1.html):

I've read almost every major work of libertarian political philosophy ever published. In my view, Michael Huemer’s new The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey (http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650) is the best book in the genre.


I assumed this was exaggerated, but surprisingly it may not be. Of all the books I have read, including Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty (http://wp.me/p2cdsV-ht)," David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom (http://wp.me/p2cdsV-dP)," Gary Chartier's "The Conscience of an Anarchist (http://wp.me/p2cdsV-fq)," Gerard Casey's "Libertarian Anarchism: Against the State (http://wp.me/p2cdsV-fe)" and many essays and other works related to libertarianism (http://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/works/) including classics such as Lysander Spooner's famous essay "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/TaxFreedomEmail/LysanderSpoonerNoTreason.pdf)," Michael Huemer's book "The Problem of Political Authority (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1137281650)" is simply the best. No single work defending libertarianism that I have seen is better.

There are two parts of the book. My blog post on Part One is here: "The Problem of Political Authority" by Professor Michael Huemer (http://wp.me/p2cdsV-nY).

Michael Huemer's lead essay on Cato Unbound summarizes much of the content of the book. It can be found here (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/problem-authority).

Whether you are a libertarian or not, you should purchase a copy of Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1137281650)." I recommend it, more highly than I’ve ever recommended any book, essay, article, or other work before.

http://econlog.econlib.org/2013/01/17/huemer.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1137281650) http://peacerequiresanarchy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/michael-huemer.jpg (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/fac_huemer.shtml)

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Kevin Vallier writes (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/the-problem-of-political-authority-the-symposium-begins/):


[August 12] begins our symposium on Michael Huemer’s new book The Problem of Political Authority (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1137281650). The book has two aims: refute the main philosophical arguments for the political authority and legitimacy of government, and construct a defense of political anarchism.

The symposium will consist of four critical responses to Huemer’s book, and a rejoinder by Huemer himself. I start today. Bas, Chris Morris and Massimo Renzo will follow up on Wednesday, Friday and Monday. Mike’s reply should follow soon thereafter.

I’m very much looking forward to our discussion. We will disagree on a lot of matters, ones that I consider both philosophically deep and interesting.

If you don’t have time to read the book, you can check out Huemer’s lead essay on Cato Unbound here (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/problem-authority).

August 12th: Kevin Vallier, On the Problematic Political Authority of Property Rights: How Huemer Proves Too Much (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/on-the-problematic-political-authority-of-property-rights-how-huemer-proves-too-much/)

August 14th: Christopher Morris, Michael Huemer on the State’s Political Authority (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-on-the-states-political-authority/)

August 16th: Bas van der Vossen, On the Method of Huemer’s The Problem of Political Authority (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/on-the-method-of-huemers-the-problem-of-political-authority/)

I will link to Mike Huemer's rejoinder/reply once it is posted.

[BuddyRey]

The anarcho-capitalist subreddit has been buzzing about this book for months now, but I still haven't sought out a copy yet. Looks like I might have to do so now!

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

The anarcho-capitalist subreddit has been buzzing about this book for months now, but I still haven't sought out a copy yet. Looks like I might have to do so now!
Thanks for informing me; I'll go check out Reddit. The book is very thought-provoking, even as someone who already rejects political authority and is an anarcho-capitalist.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

When I wrote the OP I had only read Part One of the Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority", which argues that political authority is an illusion. Now I just finished reading the entire two-part book (Part Two argues that anarcho-capitalism is the best social system).

As one might expect, due to the inherent difficulty of making accurate predictions about the future or about the details of a social system, I had a few criticisms of the arguments in Part Two (mainly in Chapter 11: "Criminal Justice and Dispute Resolution" and Chapter 12: "War and Societal Defense") and believe that the arguments could be improved. I intend to clearly write-up these criticisms at some point to share them with others. However, for now, I would just like to say that even with these imperfections, Part Two of Huemer's book is still one of the best -- if not the best -- defenses of the thesis that anarcho-capitalism is the best social system that I have seen.

I highly recommend the entire book and have strong expectations that it will become a classic. Among libertarian circles it will very likely be at least as famous Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" or Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" is among libertarian circles. And further, I would bet that the book will be more famous outside of libertarian circles than either of these two famous libertarian books. You should buy it -- it is very good.

Amazon: The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey (http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Political-Authority-Examination/dp/1137281650).

[BuddyRey]

It's a shame there's no audiobook version yet. That's how I most like to take in libertarian books for maximum absorbtion.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

It's a shame there's no audiobook version yet. That's how I most like to take in libertarian books for maximum absorbtion.
It wouldn't be that difficult to make an audiobook of it either.

I think Stefan Molyneux has one of the largest libertarian audiences. If he were to due an audiobook reading just of Chapter 6 "The Psychology of Authority" (which was very interesting in my opinion), I'm sure that would lead to many more people deciding to read the book.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

I will link to Mike Huemer's rejoinder/reply once it is posted.
Michael Huemer Responds to Critics, Part 1 (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/)

[helmuth_hubener]

It's a shame there's no audiobook version yet. That's how I most like to take in libertarian books for maximum absorbtion. Have a good reading voice and some audio equipment? Make one and post the torrent!

Your review does make it sound very good, PRA. How does it compare to Healing Our World? That also uses what one could call a "common-sense morality" approach.

[BuddyRey]

Have a good reading voice and some audio equipment? Make one and post the torrent!

Believe it or not, I've toyed with the idea of doing audio readings of classic anarchist books and tracts before, but I'm not sure what kind of equipment or software I'd need (I'm not much of a techie). Any suggestions?

Also, are you sure Mr. Huemer wouldn't mind his work being released for free in such a format so soon after he released it? I assumed his stuff would be copyrighted. Or is he a principled anti-IP kinda guy?

[Cabal]

Believe it or not, I've toyed with the idea of doing audio readings of classic anarchist books and tracts before, but I'm not sure what kind of equipment or software I'd need (I'm not much of a techie). Any suggestions?

Also, are you sure Mr. Huemer wouldn't mind his work being released for free in such a format so soon after he released it? I assumed his stuff would be copyrighted. Or is he a principled anti-IP kinda guy?

All you'd need is a decent mic and some kind of software to clean/cut/compile it, like Adobe Audition (this is the best example I can think of simply because I have some experience with it).

[helmuth_hubener]

Believe it or not, I've toyed with the idea of doing audio readings of classic anarchist books and tracts before, but I'm not sure what kind of equipment or software I'd need (I'm not much of a techie). Any suggestions?

Also, are you sure Mr. Huemer wouldn't mind his work being released for free in such a format so soon after he released it? I assumed his stuff would be copyrighted. Or is he a principled anti-IP kinda guy?Certainly you could ask him, which would be the classy thing to do. Most an-caps are anti-IP nowadays, but asking would still be a gesture of civility and respect.

For software, Audacity is free to download and would work quite fine for a project like this. A good microphone ($100 will get you a very good one) and a quiet place would be the key ingredients. Though, I have made multiple audiobooks as a kid using nothing but the built-in microphone on a tape recorder, with mostly good and certainly acceptable/listenable results. So even a poor microphone can turn out decent results. Just make sure to:
* level-equalize so it's not getting loud then quiet, loud then quiet.
* Only stop reading (to take a glass of water or whatever) at a chapter break, or at least a section break. The listener can tell, believe it or not.

If you want to know everything wrong to do to make an audiobook as horrible as possible, you can listen to Radical Honesty, read by the author:
http://kickass.to/blanton-brad-radical-honesty-how-to-transform-your-life-by-telling-the-truth-audiobook-pdf-t7417598.html
It would probably be a good idea, because you've listened to lots of good, polished audiobooks, but maybe never a horrible one, and hearing a horrible one will let you know things you must avoid.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Michael Huemer Responds to Critics, Part 1 (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/)

And now, Part 2 of Huemer's response to the critics:
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part-2/

(^^^ These discussions happening on the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog are very good! Highly recommended.)

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Your review does make it sound very good, PRA. How does it compare to Healing Our World? That also uses what one could call a "common-sense morality" approach.
I read the first 37 pages (out of ~170) of Dr. Mary J Ruwart's book "Healing Our World" in May/June 2013. (PDF available here: http://freekeene.com/files/Healing_Our_World.pdf ). I think this is enough to get a sense of her style and answer your question:

I think Huemer's book is clearly better. Ruwart indeed points out that nearly everyone would agree that many widely-accepted government policies (e.g. licensing requirements) would be immoral for non-government agents to perform, but she does this in a less rigorous way than Huemer.

I also think it would be easier for non-libertarians reading Ruwart's book to dismiss her genuine arguments offhand as being over-simplified and unworthy of proper responses, due to her presentation of the material not being as good as Huemer's.

I'd easily recommend "The Problem of Political Authority" to any academics, such as professors of ethics and political philosophy at my university, but I wouldn't ever recommend "Healing Our World" to them. Again, I think this is something to do with the presentation of their arguments, even though some of their main points are the same.

Also, I think Huemer does a better job of making it clear to the reader why the anti-political-authority view ought to be the default, and why statist political authority advocates bare the burden of accounting for the political authority they believe in. Huemer's success at this book is one of the main reason's why I think his book is so great.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Also, are you sure Mr. Huemer wouldn't mind his work being released for free in such a format so soon after he released it? I assumed his stuff would be copyrighted. Or is he a principled anti-IP kinda guy?

It's advisable to pay attention to copyright law (even though it's unjust). I don't know if Huemer holds the copyright or if his publisher does (or if he holds it, but has an agreement with his publisher that makes it so that he cannot legally have someone else publish it / make an audio book, etc). Anyone who wants to make an audiobook of it should definitely talk to Huemer first.

[helmuth_hubener]

I think Huemer's book is clearly better. Ruwart indeed points out that nearly everyone would agree that many widely-accepted government policies (e.g. licensing requirements) would be immoral for non-government agents to perform, but she does this in a less rigorous way than Huemer. But being less rigorous may make Healing better. You said Huemer uses "common-sense morality" which to me meant he is not trying to be philosophically air-tight and thus dry and scholarly. "Common sense" denotes reasoning which is rough and ready and though maybe not perfect it is of great appeal and accessibility to the layman. Is The Problem like that, or is it more scholarly?


I'd easily recommend "The Problem of Political Authority" to any academics, such as professors of ethics and political philosophy at my university, but I wouldn't ever recommend "Healing Our World" to them. Again, I think this is something to do with the presentation of their arguments, even though some of their main points are the same. But the vast majority of people are not college professors.

I just want to find a book for outreach that's not boring.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

But being less rigorous may make Healing better. You said Huemer uses "common-sense morality" which to me meant he is not trying to be philosophically air-tight and thus dry and scholarly. "Common sense" denotes reasoning which is rough and ready and though maybe not perfect it is of great appeal and accessibility to the layman. Is The Problem like that, or is it more scholarly?

But the vast majority of people are not college professors.

I see what you're saying, but no I don't think the rigor is a drawback. The rigor of Huemer's arguments don't take away from them being appealing an accessible to the layman. There is once section (in which he argues that Rawl's theory of justice cannot be used to account for political authority) that may be difficult for some readers to digest, but the thing is is one could just skip over it, because it's only important if you think that Rawl's TOJ is what accounts for political authority. Most people believe that other things account for political authority, like a social contract, receipt of benefits, etc, and the arguments against these accounts for authority are all very clear, digestible, and accessible to the layman.

On the other hand, I think Ruwart's less rigorous approach is a problem (even though it has the benefit of being appealing to some, so it may be good for those people), simply because it is too easy for those who disagree with the libertarian anti-political authority view to simply dismiss the book / argument without a good reason. Huemer on the other hand, makes it so clear what that argument is that no person who is at all intellectually honest with him or herself could dismiss it offhand. I think this is one of TPoPA's main strengths.

So TPoPA is both scholarly and accessible to laymen. Huemer writes in the Preface:


Who should read this book? The questions addressed herein are relevant to anyone interested in politics and government. I hope my fellow philosophers will profit from it, but I also hope it will reach beyond that small group. I have therefore tried to minimize academic jargon and to keep the writing as clear and straightforward as possible. I do not presuppose any specialized knowledge.

I think Huemer succeeds in making it accessible to large audience. I'd be confident giving it to any intelligent layman. I wouldn't give it to my mom, but I'd give it to basically any of my friends (I'm an engineering student in college), or to any decently bright high school student who reads and knows how to think.


I just want to find a book for outreach that's not boring
Okay, many of my friends would find this boring and wouldn't want to read it (because they have no interest in politics--they wouldn't read any book on the subject). I do think laymen interested in politics would be able to read this book without it being a boring chore. It was definitely very interesting for me to read and I already agreed with the surprising conclusions it argued.

[better-dead-than-fed]

An Examination of the Right to Coerce

It comes from having more guns.


and the Duty to Obey

Comes from having less guns.


Part Two argues that anarcho-capitalism is the best social system

Best at getting overthrown.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

It comes from having more guns.

Comes from having less guns.
No, Huemer uses "right" in a normative sense, not a descriptive one.


Best at getting overthrown.
No, obviously....

[BuddyRey]

By the way, just out of curiosity, how is his name pronounced? "Humor", "Haymer", or something else?

Those names with two consecutive vowels always trip me up. For example, John Boehner's name gets mangled by many people, and hilarity ensues.

[better-dead-than-fed]

No, obviously....

I meant anarcho-capitalism is the social system best at getting overthrown descriptively, not normatively.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

By the way, just out of curiosity, how is his name pronounced? "Humor", "Haymer", or something else?

Those names with two consecutive vowels always trip me up. For example, John Boehner's name gets mangled by many people, and hilarity ensues.
"Humor". Hear him pronounce it here (32 seconds into video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWpQrSDc5w&t=0m32s)):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWpQrSDc5w&t=0m32s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWpQrSDc5w&t=0m32s

[helmuth_hubener]

Best at getting overthrown.Have you heard of re-insurance? Have you considered what would be involved in fighting a war against an ancap society? The goal would have to be bankrupting the insurance companies. And there would be many of them. With trillions of dollars. And plus the re-insurance market. It would be a big challenge.

In any war, the party with the most economic wealth generally will win, long term. So if the ancap defense insurance companies and their customers who are under attack have more wealth than the nation-state(s) attacking them, then the attack will almost surely be ultimately unsuccessful.

There are all kinds of unconventional tactics insurance companies could engage in as cost-saving measures. Assassination, for instance, would always be top agenda item to consider in the war-room.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Have you heard of re-insurance?

No.


Have you considered what would be involved in fighting a war against an ancap society? The goal would have to be bankrupting the insurance companies. And there would be many of them. With trillions of dollars. And plus the re-insurance market. It would be a big challenge.

In any war, the party with the most economic wealth generally will win, long term.

Guns, not wealth.


So if the ancap defense insurance companies and their customers who are under attack have more wealth than the nation-state(s) attacking them, then the attack will almost surely be ultimately unsuccessful.

And when the ancap defense insurance companies declare war on their customers?


Seems to me like if you tried anarchy, you would wake up the next morning to find that all the private police forces had convened a meeting and decided to unite into one big police force, and they decided they want 50% of your income or else you are going to prison.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

And when the ancap defense insurance companies declare war on their customers?
See Huemer's book, section 10.9 "Protection or extortion?" (p. 249-253).

[helmuth_hubener]

Guns, not wealth. Where do guns come from? Trust me, do a survey of wars over the past 1000 years, and you will see a pattern. The richest party wins. Interestingly, that usually means the economically freest (if the parties are roughly the same population). Being incredibly rich is the best defensive strategy.




And when the ancap defense insurance companies declare war on their customers? Well, that is a different issue than being invaded, now isn't it? Are you interested in talking about it? Many thinkers have thought a lot about this and come up with some fascinating conclusions.

[better-dead-than-fed]

..

[better-dead-than-fed]

Where do guns come from? Trust me, do a survey of wars over the past 1000 years, and you will see a pattern. The richest party wins. Interestingly, that usually means the economically freest (if the parties are roughly the same population). Being incredibly rich is the best defensive strategy.

Have you ever seen what a machinegun will do to a stack of laws printed out on paper? I have, and I imagine the outcome would be similar in machinegun v money.


Well, that is a different issue than being invaded, now isn't it?

Yes, different; but my point (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424799-The-Problem-of-Political-Authority-Michael-Huemer&p=5204516&viewfull=1#post5204516) is about getting overthrown, not invaded.


Many thinkers have thought a lot about this and come up with some fascinating conclusions.

I posted (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424799-The-Problem-of-Political-Authority-Michael-Huemer&p=5204516&viewfull=1#post5204516) mine above.


Are you interested in talking about it?

That is what I am trying to do.

[Occam's Banana]

Are There Any Good Arguments for the State?
http://tomwoods.com/blog/are-there-any-good-arguments-for-the-state/
Tom Woods (24 February 2014)

Michael Huemer, author of The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1137281650/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1137281650&linkCode=as2&tag=thomacom-20), joined me last week to discuss some of the common arguments — e.g., social contract, majority rule, etc. — advanced on behalf of the state. A great show!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4v1j9wZK8k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4v1j9wZK8k