The Problem of Political Authority

The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey is a book by University of Colorado philosophy professor Michael Huemer released in January 2013. The first part of the book argues in detail for philosophical anarchism and refutes the legitimacy of political authority, while the second addresses political anarchism and the practical viability of anarcho-capitalism.^[1][2]

History and promotion

In April 2011, while he was still writing the book (then titled Freedom and Authority), Huemer was profiled by the Arts and Sciences Magazine of the University of Colorado, Boulder.^[3] The profile quoted Huemer as saying that political authority is "a moral illusion we’re suffering from."

In May 2012, a few months prior to the publication of the book, Huemer defended the argument of the book in a video.^[4]

In the months leading up to the release of the book, Huemer's UC Berkeley schoolmate and fellow anarcho-capitalist, economist Bryan Caplan, played an important role in evangelizing Huemer's book by way of his blog, EconLog, as noted by a number of reviewers of the book.^[5][6] Caplan used EconLog to solicit potential titles for the book, although none of the titles suggested in the comments was ultimately adopted.^[7] Caplan argued that what made Huemer's book special was that it started from reasonable and common-sense moral premises that many non-libertarians would agree with and applied them consistently to reach radical libertarian conclusions, setting the book apart from the writings of people like Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, and Robert Nozick.^[8][9] Caplan also used his blog to solicit reader questions on Huemer's book.^[10]

Reception

Reviews in academic publications

Ole Martin Moen of the University of Oslo, Norway, reviewed the book in Philosophical Quarterly. Moen concluded his review by writing: "In addition to being a solid scholarly work, Huemer’s book will work well as assigned reading in classes on political philosophy. It is bound to spark debate, and its inclusion would help remedy the sad fact that anarchism is often either ignored or put aside without serious engagement. This is a pity, for even if one rejects his conclusions, Huemer makes it clear that anarchism is a sophisticated theory that deserves careful consideration."^[11]

The book has also been reviewed in Ethics by George Klosko.^[12]

Cato Unbound discussion

Huemer was the lead essayist of the Cato Unbound March 2013 issue. The topic of the issue was Authority, Obedience, and the State and it was largely focused on Huemer's book and the arguments put forward by Huemer in the book. The other participants in the debate were Bryan Caplan, Tom G. Palmer, and Nicole Hassoun.^[13] Bryan Caplan's chief criticism of the book was that it transitioned too quickly from making the moral case for philosophical anarchism to explaining how an anarcho-capitalist society might work, and skipped the intermediate stage of exploring the consequences of small-government libertarianism.^[14] Tom G. Palmer argued that Huemer's arguments needed to be strengthened to address two concerns: first, government might be necessary to solve some coordination problems, and second, Huemer's ethical intuitionism was not sufficiently strong due to variation between cultures.^[15] Nicole Hassoun argued in favor of positive rights and claimed that state action may be necessary to secure these rights.^[16]

Bleeding-heart libertarians blog discussion

In July 2013, the bleeding-heart libertarians blog announced a symposium on The Problem of Political Authority.^[17] The symposium started August 12, 2013.^[18] Huemer's critics included Kevin Vallier, Christopher Morris, Bas van der Vossen, and Massimo Renzo.

Kevin Vallier argued that Huemer proves too much, and that his arguments against political authority can also be used to argue against property rights.^[19] Christopher Morris said that Huemer's definition of political authority was vague and unclear and that this was a major weakness of the book considering that its central theme was a critique of political authority.^[20] Bas van der Vossen argued that the logic people use to judge the morality of actions between persons could not appropriately be transferred to the state, and that Huemer's method of argument was thereby problematic.^[21] Massimo Renzo wrote: "The main problem I see with this line of argument is that it presupposes that there is always an independently correct course of action that agents can decide to take while acting “on their own”, i.e. outside any institutional arrangement."^[22]

Huemer responded to critics in late August 2013.^[23][24]

Other reviews and mentions in blogs and web publications

Arnold Kling reviewed Huemer's book for the Library of Economics and Liberty website.^[25] Huemer responded to Kling, and Kling published some of the subsequent back-and-forth on his blog.^[26] The book was also reviewed separately by Perry Metzger at Samizdata,^[5] by Will Kiely at the Peace Requires Anarchy blog,^[6] by The Art of Not Being Governed,^[27] by Tomasz Kaye, the creator of the George Ought to Help video series,^[28] and by Le Québécois Libre.^[29] It was also reviewed at Oxymorons Reviews^[30] and tangentially referenced in Jason Brennan's review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews of a book by Gary Chartier.^[31] A Quora question about the book elicited some critiques of the book.^[32]

Will Kiely of the Peace Requires Anarchy blog also published correspondence he had had with Michael Huemer related to the arguments made in the book.^[33]

Related books by others

• The Machinery of Freedom by David D. Friedman lays out the groundwork of the vision of an anarcho-capitalist society that Huemer builds on in Part II.^[27] Tomasz Kaye, the creator of the George Ought to Help video series, argued that Huemer's treatment of the subject was superior to that of Friedman.^[28]
• For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard provides (along with Friedman's work) much of the basis for Chapter 10's discussion of "Individual Security in a Stateless Society".^[34]
• The Conscience of an Anarchist by Gary Chartier. In a review of Chartier's book for Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Jason Brennan compared the two books thus: "Most people assume the state is necessary. There could be real value in a book that systematically attacks this assumption. But this is not the best book for that purpose. Instead, I recommend looking at Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey, published by Palgrave MacMillan a month after Chartier's book. Every place Chartier goes wrong, Huemer goes right. Like Chartier, he argues for anarchism over statism. However, unlike Chartier, he recognizes that his central conclusions are highly controversial. Huemer knows what is at stake and why his readers will be inclined to disagree. He carefully constructs simple arguments for his conclusions, relying not on controversial moral or empirical assumptions, but instead on commonsense moral intuitions, principles, and widely accepted empirical claims. His prose is clean, concise, and engaging. Huemer knows anarchism seems crazy, but he manages to make it seem like commonsense."^[31]
• Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy.^[35] Kaye said that Huemer's book was superior to Chaos Theory.^[28]
• Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes by Robert P. Ellickson.
• Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State by Gerard Casey (philosopher).

References