Is Political Authority an Illusion? A Debate: Michael Huemer and Daniel Layman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2022
- Michael Huemer and Daniel Layman discuss their co-authored debate book on political authority:
www.routledge.com/Is-Politica...
It's part of the Little Debates About Big Questions series, which I co-edit with Tyron Goldschmidt:
www.routledge.com/Little-Deba...
Political authority is the supposed thing possessed by the government which makes it the case that (i) you have an obligation to obey the government's laws, and (ii) the government has a right to coerce you into obeying its laws. Roughly: Huemer thinks the burden of proof is on the person who believes in political authority, since it posits that governments are morally different from all other actors. And he thinks all attempts to meet this burden of proof fail, which leads him ultimately to endorse a form of anarchism. Meanwhile, Layman thinks political authority is possessed by democratically accountable states because, he thinks, they are the only entities capable of sufficiently safeguarding our fundamental rights.
My website: dustincrummett.com
Twitter: / dustin_crummett
Patreon: patreon.com/dustincrummett
Paypal: paypal.me/dustincrummett?coun...
I’d say huemer came out of the discussion as more convincing
Wooot! Can’t wait to watch!
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
The argument for political authority is always based on subjective attitudes. Layman's argument is similar in effect of somebody saying, "people are evil, therefore we need a political authority to control these evil people" ignoring the fact that a political authority is a group of people. A political authority at some point in the hierarchy is above the accountability that Layman claims to exist. Essentially, a political authority creates a moral hazard that has destructive consequences just for the fact that it creates circumstances in which people don't bear the risks of their actions while others do. A political authority exists outside the scope of an economic reality in which economic calculation is possible and in that sense it undermines an economic prosperity. For this reason, the more control a political authority has, the worse the economic circumstance. So, a political authority doesn't even make economic sense.
Excellent discussion. Dustin's summaries/moderation was very helpful. Great vid!
Excellent and ordinary are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
i'm just now listening to the opening statements, but i do appreciate the quality of this panel. Hopefully there's more to come from the channel buddy!
Thanks!
Daniel seemed to always be trying to catch up.
37:00 I agree with this reasoning, but the same needs to be true of government. It's not enough that the government doesn't invade my rights. It also needs to be the case that government is held accountable so they can't invade my rights.
Great discussion! Very excited for this channel too!
Thanks!
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Enjoyed it! Thanks Dustin!
You're welcome!
It's like Huemer is being very gentle to a child. No contest . . . Unless you're emotional about this
I think Layman's biggest issue is that his conception of a society in the state of nature is wrong. A society with a common desire to secure individual rights would find (and has found) ways to provide them to people similar to the way everything else is provided. The granting of special political authority over non-consenting peaceful people is not necessary for that. The common law did not arise from government dictates, nor from a democratic process, but from the organic outcome of successive adjudication. People agreeing to settle their disputes peacefully through arbitrators that they mutually agreed on, and those arbitrators tending to rely on establish precedent. There are practical reasons for both of these things-- violence as an alternative is risky and has many very undesirable qualities and precedent provides a foundation which can buttresses rulings as fair. That's where just about all good laws actually come from.
I don't really understand Daniel's argument at all. It seems like the only argument you can really make against Michael's position is an argument that a government would be better in a practical, normative sense. It doesn't even seem like he's defending the idea that there is any legitimate political authority from the government (in the sense that you would have an obligation to obey their laws in spite of whether they are independently good laws in and of themselves). I admit that I'm very sympathetic to Michael's position, but I was also under the impression that political authority in the classical sense has just been denounced by most political philosophers.
Great debate. Thank you for the book and the video. Btw, Mike Huemer is right.
I am much more sympathetic to Daniel's position. But it is pretty complicated, and harder to convey in a format like this, I think.
@@dustin.crummett Yeah, I've read the book and I know in depth the literature on these topics. I run an institute in Spain abour anarchist political philosophy. Probably we are in opposite sides in the political spectrum, but I really appreciate your work. Thank you!
@@adriang.fuentes7649, right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas No, relative to me, is good to reject veganism.
@@adriang.fuentes7649, did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩
So, do you ADMIT that you are an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬
I wonder if Daniel's view would have been more compelling if he had hadn't worked so hard to avoid talking about probability of rights being violated and, more generally, to base any part of his position on empirical facts about the effect of the state. It just seems clear that a state could have all the abstract justifications you want, and it still wouldn't acceptable if it made everything horrible for people. I also think there's probably a fairly good case to make here that overall states are very good for people and in general do decrease the frequency of rights violations - at least the kinds of states Daniel would consider legitimate. This idea of legitimacy could also be a way to make empirical facts more palatable in Daniel's framework: if some part of the state (agency, law, official) tends in actuality to be a net negative for peoples rights, that seems like pretty good evidence they aren't legitimate, or at least are a lot less legitimate.
One other example of an empirical point where Daniel could have pressed back further is on police. Mike pointed out that police often don't solve crimes, but maybe the better question is how many fewer crimes happen with the police than would without them. I would guess it's a big difference.
Interesting discussion; I disagree with Mike about quite a bit but he's always worth a listen. I will say that once they moved past the opening statements, it felt a bit more like a rough cross-examination than a discussion, but maybe that's just me.
lessssss gooooo!!!
The account at the end of freedom *as* this other thing unlike individual autonomy or consensual relations seems like merely a redefinition to accommodate the existence of the State, which further accommodates the social and psychological state of philosophers who would rather not face up to the stark reality of still being slaves.
To contribute to the narratives/analogies offered, I think we can illustrate this evasion with a story about actual historical slavery. Take one of the admitted-to-exist "lazy" or lax slave-owners, and consider the world from the point of view of their *young* slaves -- those slave children who grow up with their families with a high degree of "license" but still under the yoke of slavery. At what point do we imagine that an average child wakes up to the reality of their condition? At what age, or at what time, do we imagine the parents "breaking the news" to them? In most respects, because of their "license," they would live fairly good lives, good enough to perhaps avoid the issue until some precipitating event forced it and made it live.
And when they *did* confront the reality, how likely is it that a ~6-12 year old child would be able to matter-of-factly "take in" that reality, and face up to their terrible lot? I would bet that many or even most of them would manage to avoid doing so, and instead rationalize or imaginatively account for their world and their place in it without identifying, naming, and dealing with the proper reality. Philosophers and political scientists who would rather redefine freedom so as to make moral and conceptual room for a State seem to me to be undertaking the same project -- they merely employ more intellectual and social resources in doing so.
Nice debate. Well organized presentations, critiques, concise, on topic. I am leaning toward Layman's view that political authority can be justified, but there have to be very specific conditions which are rarely met in actual governments!
Thanks! I am somewhat similar, though I think *some* degree of authority might not be that hard to get.
59:00 .. to answer this question, if the causation which feeds into where we are today is illegitimate, then where we are today is illegitimate. NB: here in the U.K. we are still sat on an illegitimate ‘ratchet’ (of enclosure, artificial scarcity etc) brought about when only the upper 3% could vote.
Testing.....1,2,3....testing
The discussion can be better understood if the debater's worldview is defined. A secular worldview with atheistic or agnostic leanings will result in some form of tyranny or illusion of liberty (or delusion) because without a "Divine" or absolute authority, we are left with a "might makes right" approach which can be manifested in thousands of various looking governments... but will result in some form of tyranny and oppression. Devaluation of life and property or the disrespect of personal rights of ownership make it easy to abuse "subjects" whether voluntary or forced.
The Biblical Christian worldview teaches that God owns everything and delegates managerial rights to humans, so we can own nothing in the purest sense, but we can control life and property by Divine Right of stewardship from God Himself. We are sovereign stewards (little "s" as God is the only true Sovereign with a big "S") . We are agents of God representing and managing His property and will give account directly to Him on "Judgment Day". Back to govt.... We then delegate some of the managerial authority to the "government". This is where govt. authority comes from... from the people. Blacks Law defines "state" as a body politic of people. God has written "natural law" on our hearts, so "common law" is understood to be true and Divinely inspired in its truest sense (of course, we taint and royally screw it up), but everyone innately knows stealing and killing is wrong because God hard-wired it into our heart-soul-consciousness-spirit. We are governed by consent. If someone chooses to harm a man or his property, then the authority of the people collectively in the state is supposed to provide accountability for the perpetrator. So, government in it's purest form is instituted by God. God appears to have government structure and organization in Heaven and we see representations (usually imperfect) of what's in Heaven down here on Earth. There is much symbolism and many of the founding principles of the united States and its laws are based in Holy Scripture. Again, I concede that we screw things up which is why we have to stay as close as possible to a Biblical Christian Worldview, and yes, I know it's highly controversial because people don't want to be confronted with their sin and they don't want to obey or conform to what God wants. People are generally bad or sin-natured which means we have a propensity to selfishly improve our position at the expense of others... or take other people's property without their consent... we are born this way and must be held in check with accountability measures.
The "battle" is first spiritual which is manifested physically in actions and deeds. This understanding will add clarity to the discussion and offer a reasonable and sensible explanation of what the proper form of government should be (protector of life and property rights) and why it goes off the rails into various forms of tyranny and oppression.
I'll be the first to admit the Church is many times more like the Jerry Springer Show than a Church, but that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. The problem is not the structure or Biblical principles, but the problem is in the application.... it's "operator error".
That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Son?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas no, I don't agree that I'm being presumptuous. I believe my position can be rightly defended with proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Much of what I said is not new and has also been fleshed out by weighty theologians and reformers. Most Christian's ate compromises and idolaters similar to the Pharisees who put on an air of religiosity but are inconsistent and intellectually dishonest in applying Scruoture to appease themselves and those who provide benefits to them.... Jesus rightly warned them as hypocrites to repent. We are instructed to expose evil.... contend for the faith... and to do it with love and gentleness. We must constantly check our own hearts for pride and other selfish delusions and put them under our Lord's instructuon.
If I'm being presumptuous, please tell me how as I want to correct it.
Huemer is an interesting philosopher, but his arguments for anarchism are so unbelievably stupid.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to impose that very same viewpoint upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely a unjustified, emotive assertion motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, that it not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
I think that they spark interesting questions as to how should we view the government as an entity in our society. Most people just accept the good from governments but tend to down play or simply aren’t aware of their downsides.