What is Huemerian Anarchist Libertarianism?

Huemerian Anarchist Libertarianism
Huemerian anarchist libertarianism is the political position that the vast majority of people (due to having roughly liberal values) would arrive at if they became convinced of the two main theses of Professor Michael Huemer’s book The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey:
- No government (nor any other person or group) genuinely possesses the special moral property called political authority.
- Establishing or keeping governments is not highly likely to result in a much better society than all other possible courses of action.
Very few people currently accept either of these theses.
Acceptance of the first thesis leads a typical person with roughly liberal values to minarchist libertarianism. The term Huemerian minarchist libertarianism can be used to describe anyone who came to be a minarchist libertarian because they accepted Huemer’s first thesis that governments lack political authority.
Acceptance of the second thesis as well leads one to anarchist libertarianism. A Huemerian anarchist libertarian is someone who is a libertarian anarchist because they—unlike the Huemerian minarchists–have accepted the second thesis and thus no longer see governments as being justified on consequentialist grounds.
Acceptance of these two theses in this order is what brought me to anarchist libertarianism. I know I’m not unique in this regard: Many libertarian anarchists (also called anarcho-capitalists or free market anarchists) have followed a similar intellectual path.
My Intellectual Journey to Anarchist Libertarianism
In 2010, before Michael Huemer had written The Problem of Political Authority, a libertarian anarchist friend of mine challenged my unconscious assumption that it was okay for governments to engage in a wide range of activities prohibited to all other persons and organizations.
He pointed out that if anyone else acted like the government—such as by taxing people or commanding them to not engage in certain peaceful activities and then imprisoning them for disobeying—I would believe they were guilty of extortion, kidnapping, and so on.
Most government activity suddenly seemed criminal in nature. I suddenly felt a strong need to find a good explanation for why governments should be permitted to act in this manner.
It didn’t occur to me that maybe they shouldn’t be permitted to act in these ways until after I spent many hours considering hundreds of arguments for why they should be able to and failed to come up with anything satisfactory. I suppose I have status quo bias to thank for this. I didn’t question the status quo. My friend questioned it for me and I made every effort to defend it. I was a reluctant Huemerian minarchist libertarian.
Even after I acknowledged that governments shouldn’t be granted a special moral status above everyone else, I still didn’t begin to question the status quo. Instead, I maintained that small, minimal governments were necessary to address certain essential societal problems.
I then entered the six-month phase. Joke: “What’s the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? …Six months.” In my case it took approximately seven months.
If I was reluctant to accept the first view that there is no good reason to believe that governments have the special moral authority that people treat them as having (and thus was reluctant to become a minarchist), I was even more reluctant to accept the second view that governments weren’t necessary to provide essential services and thus couldn’t be justified on consequentialist grounds (and thus was even more reluctant to become an anarchist).
I remember the moment clearly, sitting in my dorm room my freshman year of college in January 2011. I was sitting at my desk, re-reading some long debates I had had with my anarchist friend about the workings of a society without a state, realizing that I had been wrong about so many things—so many services addressing important problems could be provided in a voluntary fashion, as he had argued. It wasn’t necessary to have a government to threaten and bully people in an effort to solve the problems like I had assumed.
Eventually I had to acknowledge that a society without a state would not be a violent, chaotic, nightmarish, Hobbesian world after all. While I now agree that “We’re nowhere close to the case where government would be justified“—(meaning the expected result of replacing government with a polycentric legal system of competing providers of security and dispute resolution services is much better than would be necessary for it to be justified for people to act as agents of government or otherwise support their existence)—at the time I still thought that anarcho-capitalist societies might produce mediocre results. Still, despite society without government possibly being mediocre, I knew that it would not be so bad as to justify the existence of political-authority-less governments. Therefore, despite my ingrained desire to continue believing that having a government was a good thing, I reluctantly admitted that even a minimal state is not justified.
“Guess what… I’m an anarchist,” I said to my roommate in surprise and disbelief the moment I admitted it to myself.
“Whaaat,” he said, thinking I was crazy.
I had thought it was crazy too and never expected it to happen. Me? An Anarchist? Yeah, right.
But I no longer think it’s crazy. Polycentric Law, a.k.a. Anarcho-Capitalism [is] No Big Deal. I agree with Michael Strong that “we need to get people to realize that polycentric law, or anarcho-capitalism, is just no big deal and we should get over it already.” It’s very important that we help others understand this.
Anarchist Libertarianism is Not Extremist
The above story of my intellectual journey to libertarian anarchism (the same journey that Michael Huemer attempts to create for his reader) is more a story about psychological biases and barriers than it is a story about anything else.
Libertarianism is not extremist.
Anarchism is not extremist.
I hold the same values as I did five years ago before I had taken any time to think about politics or political philosophy.
I more or less hold the same values as my friends and family.
Libertarian anarchists don’t have significantly different values than most other people; they’ve just realized that popular political views and the current structure of societies aren’t consistent with those values.
Nobody should see libertarian anarchism as being extremist. The reality is that it’s common sense.
Join The Discussion
9 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Kevin Victor October 18, 2014 , 2:42 am Vote0
What happens if in my ward, township or any other form of locality, we set up a government and everyone agrees to the terms voluntarily. Would this authority then be considered political?
William Kiely October 18, 2014 , 2:26 pm Vote0
Kevin, it depends. For example, suppose all of the owners of land in a community agree to ban a drug on their property. In and of itself, this rule is fine. However, it can only be legitimately enforced in some ways. If the consequence of violating the rule is to take the prohibited drug away from the person (i.e. force them to remove it from their property) or to evict the rule-violator from the property, then this is legitimate. But, if the consequence is to imprison the rule-violator, then this is illegitimate. Some people disagree such as Walter Block who advocates voluntary slavery, but this is a minority view. I recommend Stephan Kinsella’s journal article “A Libertarian Theory of Contract” (see Google) for a more detailed discussion of legitimate vs illegitimate enforcement of contracts that will help answer your question about contractual “governments.”
Kevin Victor October 18, 2014 , 2:51 pm Vote0
Thanks, yeah in general I don’t see the problem with contracts as long as it is done voluntarily even if it’s something controversial like Walter Block’s proposal. I think what Huemer was getting at was that the State is illegitimate, which is essentially political authority. Maybe we shouldn’t call contractual governments as political authority for the sake of clarity.
Alexander Fainblum October 18, 2014 , 10:45 am Vote0
You would likely be considered terrorists.
William Kiely October 18, 2014 , 2:28 pm Vote0
By whom and if what?
Dave Burns October 18, 2014 , 8:41 pm Vote0
Huemer’s book is well-written and very interesting. The chapter on psychological factors supporting belief in the legitimacy of the state contains many fascinating insights. The prolific Davi Barker has a book out (http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Sociopathy-Renegade-Psychological-Experiment/dp/1938357140) titled Authoritarian Sociopathy where he takes this a bit further and describes a series of experiments he hopes to run.
My problem with anarchism is the same as my problem with other political programs or Utopias; I can’t go to my local grocery store and pick some off the shelf. I can’t even go to the tailor shop and have some anarchy custom-made for me. So, given I buy Huemer’s arguments, what can I do to improve the world? How can the world change to bring us closer to solving the problem of political authority?
My blog on L.me is more or less an episodic reflection on that question. “How do we move in the right direction?” seems like a much more important question right now than “what will it look like when we get the?”
William Kiely October 18, 2014 , 10:37 pm Vote0
“The chapter on psychological factors supporting belief in the legitimacy of the state contains many fascinating insights.”
I agree. It was Huemer’s Porcfest X talk “The Psychology of Authority” on that chapter that persuaded me to buy his book. Highly recommended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWpQrSDc5w
I want to actually improve the world also, rather than merely point out its flaws. I’m currently taking part in an educational program called Exosphere (http://exosphe.re/) to help me get started on that path.
Stephan Kinsella October 22, 2014 , 9:52 am Vote0
“It was Huemer’s Porcfest X talk “The Psychology of Authority” on that chapter that persuaded me to buy his book. “–
Academically priced, unfortunately. Even the Kindle version is like $28. I never understand libertarian thinkers who don’t put free, open versions of their books online, to get their ideas out there.
William Kiely October 22, 2014 , 12:51 pm Vote0
I absolutely agree. On January 13th I emailed Mike Huemer:
“Hi Mike,
When do you plan on making digital versions of The Problem of Political Authority available for free online?
Thank you,
William Kiely
(PeaceRequiresAnarchy)”
He didn’t answer, but instead replied back two weeks later on an unrelated note inquiring about information related to a list he was making of reviews / people who have reviewed his books. I didn’t ask the question again (but I will now on Facebook).
(Given the number of hours it takes me to read a book, the price usually isn’t significant. If I know that I definitely am going to read it, it’s not an issue to pay the academic price. The issue is that people who aren’t sure if they want to read it all can’t just begin reading it, or read a random section of it, because they have to buy the whole book to do so. It’s not worth $28 if you’re only going to read it for a few minutes and then decide not to finish it.
To Mike’s credit, he did put the first chapter of TPOPA online (http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/1.htm), but of course I agree with you that it would be better if he put a free, open version (or multiple versions in different formats) of the whole book online.)