Scan barcode
bittersweet_symphony's review
5.0
Michael Huemer should be one of the more often referenced luminaries of the 21st century defenders of individual liberty, free markets, and voluntary association.
He provides a cool, and intellectually honest defense of a stateless society. "I argue that the eventual development of an anarcho-capitalist order, while not inevitable, is neither impossible nor exceedingly improbable."
After taking on the theoretical, consequential and psychological problems with authority, he turns to his defense of a "society without authority." He does not skirt away from the difficult to solve pragmatic challenges to the philosophy of a stateless society. He faces them head-on: predatory nature of humanity, individual security, criminal justice and dispute resolution, war and societal defense, and eventually the move from democracy to anarchy.
This book is best suited for a lower-level graduate course in political philosophy. It is the ideal tool for winning over the mind of a thoughtful or well-informed skeptic of individual liberty.
Huemer is less of the eternal optimist as Jeffrey Tucker--and less poetic--in his presentation of anarchism but his hope for the future still shines through. "I have written as if the world's march toward democracy will continue, with all authoritarian governments ultimately destined to fall. This is not inevitable...The most salient and important trend that stands out in any study of the intellectual history of the past 2000 years must surely be the gradual accretion of knowledge and the corresponding move from worse ideas to better ideas. The process is of course not monotonic--there are cases of stagnation and regression--but the undeniable difference between humanity's knowledge today and its knowledge 2000 years ago is staggering."
Huemer shares the same disdain for The State as Murray Rothbard, and the same distrust in government monopoly as David Friedman, but he convinces others of the need for a post-government society using diplomacy, humility, and meticulous argument. His argument against statism (and its illusion of authority) with two points: 1) "The democratic process fails to ground authority, as one typically does not acquire a right to coerce someone merely because those who want one to coerce the victim are more numerous than those who want one to refrain...The appeal to the obligations to promote equality and to respects others' judgment fails for several reasons, including that these obligations are not strong enough to override individuals' rights." 2) "Institutions of authority are extremely dangerous, and the undermining of trust in authority is therefore highly socially beneficial."
There are more moral, economic, social, pragmatic, and equitable ways for individuals to organize. Huemer provides a way forward away from statism that makes voluntarism seem more attainable than ever before--even if a "society without authority" remains a few centuries into the future.
He provides a cool, and intellectually honest defense of a stateless society. "I argue that the eventual development of an anarcho-capitalist order, while not inevitable, is neither impossible nor exceedingly improbable."
After taking on the theoretical, consequential and psychological problems with authority, he turns to his defense of a "society without authority." He does not skirt away from the difficult to solve pragmatic challenges to the philosophy of a stateless society. He faces them head-on: predatory nature of humanity, individual security, criminal justice and dispute resolution, war and societal defense, and eventually the move from democracy to anarchy.
This book is best suited for a lower-level graduate course in political philosophy. It is the ideal tool for winning over the mind of a thoughtful or well-informed skeptic of individual liberty.
Huemer is less of the eternal optimist as Jeffrey Tucker--and less poetic--in his presentation of anarchism but his hope for the future still shines through. "I have written as if the world's march toward democracy will continue, with all authoritarian governments ultimately destined to fall. This is not inevitable...The most salient and important trend that stands out in any study of the intellectual history of the past 2000 years must surely be the gradual accretion of knowledge and the corresponding move from worse ideas to better ideas. The process is of course not monotonic--there are cases of stagnation and regression--but the undeniable difference between humanity's knowledge today and its knowledge 2000 years ago is staggering."
Huemer shares the same disdain for The State as Murray Rothbard, and the same distrust in government monopoly as David Friedman, but he convinces others of the need for a post-government society using diplomacy, humility, and meticulous argument. His argument against statism (and its illusion of authority) with two points: 1) "The democratic process fails to ground authority, as one typically does not acquire a right to coerce someone merely because those who want one to coerce the victim are more numerous than those who want one to refrain...The appeal to the obligations to promote equality and to respects others' judgment fails for several reasons, including that these obligations are not strong enough to override individuals' rights." 2) "Institutions of authority are extremely dangerous, and the undermining of trust in authority is therefore highly socially beneficial."
There are more moral, economic, social, pragmatic, and equitable ways for individuals to organize. Huemer provides a way forward away from statism that makes voluntarism seem more attainable than ever before--even if a "society without authority" remains a few centuries into the future.
rhythimashinde's review
4.0
4.5 stars. Being my first political philosophy read, I was impressed with the writing style instead of the academic style that it was. The author is basically questioning the authority of the justice and especially criminal jurisdiction. Thus, the majority of his standpoints, even against Rawls are agreeable. Though this is beyond the scope of this book, I would have liked to hear (at least, in short) how the authority works (and does it have a problem as well) beyond just jurisdiction - e.g. for industries and general governance? A detailed review of this book will follow soon.
More...