The_Problems_With_Anarchy
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Florida Atlantic University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2010
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by CoachCloverCaribou25
Crews 1
Patrick Crews
Dr. Director
PHI 2010-017
7 February, 2024
The Problems With Anarchy
In this paper, I will summarize and critique Michael Huemer’s writing ”The Problem of Political Authority”
. I will be arguing against his opinion and proving why an anarchist government would never work. First, I will summarize Michael Huemer’s writing. Second, I will
consider personal objections and critiques to Huemer’s argument.
In this section I will summarize Micheal Huemer’s ”The Problem of Political Authority”
,
and explain Huemer’s argument for his views. In Huemer’s work he presents us with a solid argument and evaluation against the need of a government led by political authority. Huemer’s main argument claims that political figures in a government lack following the fair-and-square codes that they should enforce, but it still is a concept that is socially accepted by its citizens. In the text he states how the government has double standards. The government's actions would be considered outlandish if it were to be performed by the common citizen such as you or I. These unfair and cruel actions are swept under the rug and almost seen as acceptable when it is performed by the state or a person of a high wealth status. Huemer starts out by stating what political authority is, and that individuals do not have to follow the state's code based upon their moral obligations, they must follow it based on its authority over them. He argues that political authority must be morally correct as well as have fairness to all no matter the person and goes against the use of inherent coercion by the government. Furthermore, Huemer criticizes the consequentialist argument for political authority, which states that a government is needed for
Crews 2
keeping its citizens in check, as well as safe. He gets into his argument by stating many times where the government's actions have led to violence and harm as well as gone against moral codes and the rights they have set in place. He defends his argument by appealing to logic and moral codes. He emphasizes the rights a person has against coercion no matter who is doing the action of coercion. Additionally he addresses an objection to the need for a government to maintain peace and well being within its own boundaries.
He proposes different methods of leading a government and how he would address the current issues in the government present. Huemer concludes that the use of political authority is not fundamentally sound, it is lacking moral ethics and many times it has failed its citizens and led them into coercion without consent from its government. Huemer wants to see a voluntary society where the government is not a group of people leading you but a mutual agreement of respect of rights and responsibilities found between its citizens.
In the following section I will be objecting to the views of Micheal Huemer in his writing ”The Problem of Political Authority”
. I will argue against his ideas, as well as consider my own objections to his views. I will be taking into consideration how Huemer might respond to my claims against him, and explain why his opinion is invalid and not satisfactory. An objection to the ideas of Michael Huemer’s ”The Problem of Political Authority” could argue the author makes a valid claim about the concerns regarding the moral ethics and codes followed in a political authority. His proposal for a voluntary society is unrealistic and fails to address the concerns of real world governance such as war, invasion, and so on. One might argue the American government system may be unjust and act against moral codes. Police can use excessive force and get away with it. When you look into it there are very few cases where the person being detained receives reparations for the actions that are performed against them.
In
Crews 3
that case Huemer makes sense. We all may disagree with our government's coercion, but it's that fearful feeling we all get when in contact with law enforcement or when we have the thought to do the opposite of the law that really keeps us in check.
Nobody wants imprisonment unless there is no other option for them
?
The idea of breaking the law and going to jail or getting fined is a universal punishment that we all must have. Not only do these laws keep the common citizen
in check, they are there to protect us from those who are mentally challenged and want to do wrong on this earth such as commit extreme crimes.
Huemer has to take the thought of extremists or terrorism being a possible outcome. When you look at governments such as those in the M
iddle
East
you see the growth of terrorism and the impact it has on those in the action of it and those who suffer from its actions. With an anarchist state with no leader when a terrorist group is to form and start to face as a threat to the nation's growth and safety how will they be stopped.
Again it's the same issue, you need to form a military or police force to combat against these terrorists.
One might contest the idea of a society without a centralized form of authority based on the thought that there will be challenges in coordinating in collective action from all individuals. How will disputes among each other be resolved, and the simple protection of your rights, what will happen to them. Without a government there to establish, enforce and protect your laws you would imagine there would be an increase in chaos.
Who would be there to stop the riots when everyone thinks something is unfair.
Obviously it wouldn't be the police force because there is not one
!
With such a need for a group to protect the action of creating the group relies again on the need for cooperation.
If this group is to form, how do you know they will cooperate? What will lead them to protect the state instead of having them attempt to take it over.
The absence of a centralized government could leave those who are vulnerable without protection for themselves to people who are looking to rise above and gain power, or simply
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Crews 4
looking for someone easy to exploit since there would be no consequences to face.
In response, Micheal Huemer may counter argue that transitioning into a voluntary society will present challenges. These challenges don’t justify our continued acceptance of a government that acts in coercive ways. Huemer could emphasize on the importance of voluntary actions, such as a private security company to help monitor citizens, or the possibility of a contractual agreement to
address the concerns for moral codes and ethics without a government that acts in coercion. However, this response overlooks the practices and difficulties associated with maintaining a voluntary society. If you were to bring in an outside security agency, what difference does that have to our police force. Doesn’t that bring you right back to what you ought to get rid of. How is one to know that these outside security agencies won’t act in coercion in the same ways as the protective forces we currently have in play.
Who is to say everyone will voluntarily act together. You need to think about all of the lazy members of society who don’t want to work or contribute in any physical way, how would you get them to perform when there is no incentive.
When they have received welfare their whole life and never felt the need to work because they have access to free income. If there is no outside force requiring them to work or provide for themselves what
is there to say they will contribute in any way. What will become of those who are disabled? How will they be required to contribute to our society? Not having a centralized government will
leave the disabled vulnerable. This specific group has workers to take care of them and resources
available to help them. In a free world, whose job will it be to take care of them.
Will they be left
to die out and the world becomes a survival of the fittest and only the most well adapted strives to reproduce. Also, how will everyone agree on the same moral codes or a contractual agreement
when there is no one to enforce them. You also have to take into account what if a person does not agree with the contractual agreement that is brought forward and begins to act outlandish.
Crews 5
Who will be there to prevent that and stop that situation from happening, nobody unless someone
is willing to step up to complete an action that is not their job in which they receive no compensation or reward. Without a centralized authority to establish and enforce laws you are going to find major inconsistencies, such as people acting biased towards one another, power imbalances between everyone slowly becoming visible, and zero protection of the citizens rights.
Being a business owner who is going to be there to protect your business in a free state? With an anarchist government the purge is a very realistic outcome. The purge would not be just a single day, those in the nation would be living it day to day.
Store owners would be scared to open up shop with the risk of all their
hard earned belongings potentially being stolen. Living in a world like that would you feel safe? You take a step outside and don’t have that comfort feeling you used to because the chances of being robbed or held at gunpoint have drastically risen. In my opinion the transition to a voluntary society would likely result in a resistance from those who are already in a form of power, such as police officers, government officials, business owners, and even those who are on the high end of the wealth scale.
They may find this as an attack against them and act accordingly to try to prevent any further actions of bringing them closer to the common citizen. Additionally, Huemer's proposal for a government without centralized authority puts a high level of trust for those involved. For this to work you will need every individual to cooperate with each other. What would happen to those who don't get along with each other, they will be forced to work together, but what if they refuse then what will happen an
uprising against each other?
The absence of a government to provide the N
ation
with the needed goods and services, as well as regulate resources could result in a scenario where citizens will act
in their best self interest. When all goes to shit the nation would become a frenzy.
You could call
Crews 6
it a free for all, everyone prioritizing self interest over the collective group as a whole. In my eyes I see this as a suboptimal outcome for our society as whole.
Overall, In ”The Problem of Political Authority” by Michael Huemer, his critique of political authority raises many important philosophical questions. Huemer’s alternative of a voluntary society to the normal government under a political authority faces significant challenges that don't deem themselves as practical. Ultimately his ideas don’t properly address and take into account the in depth complexities needed to have a stable government in the real world.
Bibliography
Huemer, Michael. The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey
. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Director, Sam. UNIT 2: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
, canvas.fau.edu/courses/149694/files/32259251?module_item_id=4582548. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help