The Argument for Anarchism | Michael Huemer
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 01. 2021
- Anarchism, or the view that we should not have a government, seems impractical. But Michael Huemer believes there is a way to understand Anarchism that not only resolves these impracticalities - it may provide a better society than the one we have now.
Michael Huemer's book, 'The Problem of Political Authority': www.amazon.com/Problem-Politi...
Podcast: anchor.fm/braininavat
Facebook Group: / braininavat
IMDB: www.imdb.com/title/tt12490350/
Animation by Laurynne Gouws: www.lightbulbmedia.co.za/
Huemer is based
Ildr? I Have seen u there or somewhere on Facebook idk
Technology could be a very good answer to the last question on why we don’t see anarco-capitalist system now.... the economy of scale for protection was much larger at the beginning of civilization because the transaction costs were enourmous with primitive technology... and the the stability of a state made it continuing over time...
People form groups to promote shared interests; they lay down rules & use violence to enforce said rules. This is a state. A small state could be formed voluntarily and the world as a whole operates in anarchy. A big state is a large group of which not all agree but enough do so to persist...for a while and fractures can happen
It doesn't add anything to the philosophical discussion but the "jus primae noctis" (the feudal overlord's right to have sex with subordinate women on their wedding night that you mentioned) is just a myth and not a real thing.
Right
The poor & everyone else would quickly learn how to protect themselves, regardless of hired security. Also people would naturally come together as a community to support one another. The only reason we immediately think of having someone else protect us is due to our unhealthy dependence on the ruling class.
We started with a state system? I am not sure this is true.
8:00 by asking what to do the interviewer demonstrates his lack of understanding. Anarchy doesn't look for guidance, it creates it in accordance with local customs and values... I would have answered by telling him it's his communities job to figure it out for themselves...
What if the great majority of people are actually good humans. I still believe in my brothers and sisters, we'll never be as bad as some like to suggest....
Does Michael Huemer believe that democracy (or voting) is coercive?
Yes
@@nektariosbreyannis576 What are the reasons he gives for this? Where does he speak on this in his works?
@@jimmyfaulkner1855yes, he address the arguments from a democratic state in his book, the problem of political authrority
Democracy is just 3 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
The logic and explanation seem plausible!
Re: feudal lords, the state, etc: The question is ultimately this - Would you rather that Hitler/Mussolini/The Clintons/Che/BadGuy/whatever be in charge of your country or just a department store down the street? Under anarchism, your boogeyman is only in charge of a small area like a department store.
If we accept the premise that some landowner is raping/killing/torturing poor people who exist on their land and excuse their own behavior, the anarchist view is that these tyrants would only have sway over a very small parcel of land, like a department store, and not a whole country. Those poor people would have the choice to either stay or self-segregate to new areas where this treatment doesn't occur. The constant hypothetical criticism that anarchism often gets of "but what about warlords" is not a criticism of anarchism, but a description of the current status quo. If might is right, how come America hasn't invaded Canada or Mexico? Governments are known primarily for exerting violent force upon other governments and have trained people to view them as terrorizers of their opponents. The question about "but what about warlords" is bred from that training as a way of getting them to apologize for their own governments violence towards them and others. Peace is often more lucrative than war, and all anarchism is trying to say is that 'you do not get to speak for me', which means negotiation and trade are how disputes are solved, which means more human flourishing, more innovative solutions to problems, and more people profiting as a result.
Why do you think it would be like a department store? Some US tech firms are already more powerful than some countries. I'm not really saying it would necessarily be worse than what we have today, I think it would be pretty much the same.
That is a rather naive view of history. Do you really think it is only one specific form of human organization, those being largely democratic governments, that makes them uniquely responsible for acts of war and terrorism? Why wouldn't it just as easily occur with warlords and other roving bands of thugs under anarchy? Anarchism is not some magical exemption to the laws of human nature. Violence is to be expected, both in societies that have governments and those that have anarchies.
The question is which form of violence is more controllable. In governments like ours, where we have elected representatives, a separation of powers, and a constitution, it is much harder to abuse that power and much easier to channel that power to productive and even peaceful purposes. In anarchies, you have virtually zero protections. And furthermore it is not a case where you magically have a voluntary free market where people can choose their oppressor, or choose their parcel of land.
It is highly likely that gangs will form and defeat each other to form larger gangs, and before long you will basically have the equivalent historical empires. History is a lesson of constant invasion and conquest and empire. Many empires, like the Persian empire, were just forms of organized thuggery, which is exactly what you will get under anarchism, a repeat of history, filled with enslavement and barbaric acts of punishment to keep people in order. And you won't have a choice to "live under a different owner". You will probably be enslaved against your will if you're born to the wrong person.
I don't think you quite understand that there won't magically be a free market system under anarchy. The first and most logical outcome, again based purely on thousands of years of history, is that war happens, and might makes right, and you get owned by someone else until the will to break free from those chains of oppression arises in the population. That is the point at which you have democratic government, and why it is so important to defend the protections we have fought and died for. Anything else is a fantasy. If you really want to test this system, you can do so on your own parcel of land but please don't try to do anything major based solely off your theory crafting and retconning of history :P
The right of first night didnt exist. Using a historical myth to support your argument, like one of you guys did, makes the argument seem worse than it is, because not only are you providing no evidence for your claim, you also make it look like you go with something that never happened, because even you cant come up with a valid example, so surly the claim must be totally unsupported.
Bill Gates isn't a psychopath. Well, that didn't age well.
Is he though? Or is he simply holding the same opinions that the intelligentsia is holding and using his money to push their agenda. Huemer was arguing that people like Bill Gates arent secretly Dschinghis Khan, wanting to use their money to plunder and pillage.
I know the whole satanic elite doing child sacrifices and stuff is a funny meme in our circles, but reality is probably much more mundane, if just as destructive and evil as if these people truly were space lizards.
this was a fair criticism of state authority but poor case for switching to no state government at all
You have to read his book The Problem of Political Autority. Pairs well with Macinery Of Freedom by Friedman.
I agree, at least in a democratic state there is hope for helping the poor, in his system the poor will be brutalized.
@@androidwerewolf4541 How do you figure that?
@@kahwigulum poor people can't afford security, without laws criminals will abuse them.
@@androidwerewolf4541 Obviously "having laws" does not prevent criminals abusing people right now.
Remember, anarchy does not mean the absence of rules. It just means the absence of rulers.
There are ways that poor people can receive both protection as well as justice in a society described by MHeumer.
There are apparently examples in history written about this. Maybe a bit long-winded to describe in detail here.
Anarchy = TRUE freedom
End of story
This is genuinely frustrating to listen to, not gonna lie. I feel like so many of his responses are whataboutisms. "Here's this potential flaw in your proposed system." "Oh, well, guess what, governments also have similar flaws!" That's not really a response, though. It just feels like a dodge.
Huemer's anarchism is competing with statism, so by pointing out that x is a problem for both, he's effectively arguing that anarchism is no worse than statism.
Most critiques of anarchism are just descriptions of the status quo. The fact that people ask questions about how to escape from the status quo just goes to show how little support the state has amongst the population even if the answer doesn't satisfy your curiosity and even if those people aren't convinced by the anarchist world-view.
Anarchy is found folly in the King James Bible. Christians adhere to the readings of the Old Testament and in the Book of Daniel we read:
20¶Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:
21And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
22He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.
Do not be deceived by vain philosophy. To abolish the government is not scriptural since the government shall be established upon the shoulders of the LORD.
Isaiah 9:6 KJV - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Your text does not show what you say it does.
Weaknesses of the KJV aside, this is neither an argument against anarchism for secular societies nor a convincing argument for theocracy for the billions of people who aren't Christians. At its core, it's literally just preaching to the choir.
This interviewer is thick headed, I can see why he needs government, gotta be spoon fed every step.
What if the great majority of people are actually good humans. I still believe in my brothers and sisters, we'll never be as bad as some like to suggest....
One can believe that the great majority of people are good humans and still recognize the need for security services and dispute resolution services. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, as the adage goes, strong fences make for good neighbors.
@@_emh fences you say? Good fences are for livestock where I’m from and I live in a neighborhood of kind living simple folks, I don’t lock my doors…
@@KatyWantsToGo People live in different places with different risk profiles. The security firms and dispute resolution firms that Huemer talks about would need to accommodate those customers, not just customers who live in Mayberry.
@@_emh it’s open carry here my man, we don’t need to be policed here…
@@KatyWantsToGo I carry, but it's worth recognizing that lethal force is a problematic response to a lot of common offenses and disputes. It's not a panacea and it doesn't remove the need for other forms of security and dispute resolution. But hey, best of luck there.