Executive summary: In this crossposted introduction to his longstanding argument against political authority, Michael Huemer contends—through accessible moral reasoning rather than complex theory—that no state has a justified, content-independent right to rule, and that belief in such authority is based on weak or incoherent arguments like the social contract, democracy, or utilitarian necessity; instead, he proposes that common-sense morality applied consistently leads to a broadly libertarian skepticism of state coercion.
Key points:
The core problem of political philosophy is authority, not policy—specifically, whether any person or institution has the moral right to coerce others in ways that would be impermissible for individuals.
The concept of political authority combines two controversial ideas: that the state has moral legitimacy to rule (even when wrong) and that citizens are morally obligated to obey its commands, neither of which Huemer finds defensible.
Huemer critiques common justifications for state authority:
Social contract theory is factually false (no real or implicit contract exists) and conceptually flawed.
Democracy does not legitimize coercion by majority vote, since majority power does not override individual rights.
Utilitarian arguments may justify specific coercive actions (e.g. emergency rule to avoid chaos) but not general, content-independent authority.
Denying authority does not require full anarchism, but it does mean state power should be treated like any private coercion: only justified when strictly necessary, such as to prevent harm.
Libertarianism follows from three claims: coercion is generally wrong, government operates coercively, and governments have no special moral status exempting them from ordinary moral rules.
The ‘skepticism of authority’ approach is rhetorically powerful because it aligns with ordinary moral intuitions and shifts the burden of proof to statists, avoiding the need for extreme rights theories or technical economics.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: In this crossposted introduction to his longstanding argument against political authority, Michael Huemer contends—through accessible moral reasoning rather than complex theory—that no state has a justified, content-independent right to rule, and that belief in such authority is based on weak or incoherent arguments like the social contract, democracy, or utilitarian necessity; instead, he proposes that common-sense morality applied consistently leads to a broadly libertarian skepticism of state coercion.
Key points:
The core problem of political philosophy is authority, not policy—specifically, whether any person or institution has the moral right to coerce others in ways that would be impermissible for individuals.
The concept of political authority combines two controversial ideas: that the state has moral legitimacy to rule (even when wrong) and that citizens are morally obligated to obey its commands, neither of which Huemer finds defensible.
Huemer critiques common justifications for state authority:
Social contract theory is factually false (no real or implicit contract exists) and conceptually flawed.
Democracy does not legitimize coercion by majority vote, since majority power does not override individual rights.
Utilitarian arguments may justify specific coercive actions (e.g. emergency rule to avoid chaos) but not general, content-independent authority.
Denying authority does not require full anarchism, but it does mean state power should be treated like any private coercion: only justified when strictly necessary, such as to prevent harm.
Libertarianism follows from three claims: coercion is generally wrong, government operates coercively, and governments have no special moral status exempting them from ordinary moral rules.
The ‘skepticism of authority’ approach is rhetorically powerful because it aligns with ordinary moral intuitions and shifts the burden of proof to statists, avoiding the need for extreme rights theories or technical economics.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.