Being called a "criminal" means nothing when law is defined arbitrarily Fictional societal entities have no basis to arbitrate anything; authority is impossible in that context
The authority every individual person has to rectify an injustice. It naturally rests in each person. The Law of Self-Defense has many entailments that allow for non-consensual interventions.
@@perrymason9942 I may feel I rectified injustice but society may collectively treat me as an unstable person that didn't dispense proper punishment. How can a side in a quarrel be objective about punishment? It's impossible. Judges are supposed to be impartial and thus able to be better at dispensing proportional punishment. Their ruling legitimizes punishment in the eyes of society as well. But all that is besides the point. Where does court get authority to judge when criminal doesn't agree on arbitration?
What is the foundation of authority itself? Force. Strength and the ability to wield it. Authority is amoral. People submit to an authority for one of two reasons: 1. They stand to benefit from it (protection, prosperity), or 2. They haven't the means to fight against it and win. The "criminal" never signed a contract promising never to break the law. The court's authority to pass judgement is based on its ability to enforce its judgement. It's sheep paying a wolf pack to bite a lone wolf for attacking one of them. Money and violence. Whether or not it is just is entirely subjective. So what I'd like to know is how this anarchist solution is really any different to the government/mafia it is supposed to replace? It just seems like doing the same things but possibly cheaper and more efficiently.
It doesn't sound like the minimal state is compatible with what Huemer is arguing for either. Because by outlawing all others from acting as arbitrators or protectors they are in fact assuming authority that others do not have.
I just watched Peter Quinones drivel on and on about why Libertarianism = bad. This was the breath of fresh air I needed. Anyone know what happened to that guy? He just read some Curtis Yarvin and then was seduced by him?
He essentially let his sense of urgency get the best of him and gave up on principles even though he claims he still wants to have a free society. And while it’s totally not 100% his fault, he’s still responsible for giving in to collective guilt when it comes to libertarians and libertarianism. Because there was libertarians or better said Lolberts giving really tone deaf arguments in favor of voluntary mandates back in 2020, he thought it was so self evident that we need to get the government involved to ban any voluntary mandates coming from the private sector in the work force. And anyone that didn’t steadfastly agree with him was called a Lolbert or a boxcar. Which is hilarious because I don’t think Peter Quinones realizes that the term Lolbert was already being used way before he learned it by one of my favorite libertarians Jim Jesus who did The Lolberts podcast. Anyways digressing a little bit, it seems Peter Quinones went down the post libertarian rabbit hole and isn’t interested in finding out if there’s better arguments in favor of libertarianism or anarcho capitalism. Instead he’s been reduced to constantly arguing that libertarians and anarchists are doing nothing because they care about principles more than power. And while I can sympathize with that assessment, it’s still collective guilt because he’s generalizing all libertarians and anarchists based off of what one or a few Lolberts said. So if a libertarian or anarchist voluntarily gives money to a libertarian public interest law firm like the Institute For Justice or the Pacific Legal Foundation, etc., is that still doing nothing just because it had nothing to do with voting or running for office? Of course not
Just to be clear: Huemer rejects the Rothbardian approach to ethics. While he is what led Huemer to ancap initially, he's critiqued his views and the views of absolutist libertarians. He rejects the "NAP" approach (as most philosophers likely would).
Rejecting "NAP" = crypto-authoriatran Libertarianism is a sham anyway. A few good ideas, everything else is bunk. You either have voluntary participation or you don't. State or no state. There is no middle ground. No it doesn't matter how many ways Block can turn himself inside out trying to justify state terrorism
Yes, but I would surmise it's because of the limits of the "self-ownership" argument, which I myself have rejected more in favor of a self-stewardship assumption. I also think ownership still doesn't unwound overarching moral principles. I think the absolutist libertarians have wrongly accepted too much of the fact/value distinction from bad philosophy. I left a comment on Bob's website -- here's an excerpt of where I believe Huemer comes from: "The primary thing that strikes me is this: Huemer might have shied away from using the term "natural law", but his argument is a natural law one. This is because I believe this approach is the "common sense one."...I like what the great Peter Kreeft says -- he calls St. Thomas Aquinas the"apostle of common sense."...The more I listened to Huemer, the more I heard arguments that come right out of the Scholastic tradition. To take one example, his comment about the limits of private property and justifying certain instances of aggression fully paralleled the School of Salamanca in the 16th century (see the wonderful Alejandro Chaufen on this: archive.org/details/christiansforfre00chaf). At a broader level, I believe Huemer's position is a natural entailment from St. Thomas' paradigm on the 'Law' and resultant political order. See here, as some of the similarities are uncanny (isidore.co/aquinas/TenCommandments.htm#9). Even Huemer's position on how people know what's right but act selfishly otherwise is a modern way of defining the Law of Concupiscence. Huemer in large part is using common sense and the law of non-contradiction. Aquinas spoke directly to this point in defining the "Law" that God expects man to follow, and in defining those "laws" that are unjust and have no authority. Again, see the above excerpt and the parallels are striking."
I honestly sub'd to your work and have for over a decade now - but just found out I'm blocked by you on "X"? I can't even remember an interaction let alone any time I would be derogatory towards you. At least use mute so people can see your work. But blocking so frivolously or en mass? Utterly destroys character imo.
I discover Michael Huemer, because of Keith knight very good guest thx Bob Murphy
Where does court get authority to judge when criminal doesn't agree on arbitration.
Being called a "criminal" means nothing when law is defined arbitrarily
Fictional societal entities have no basis to arbitrate anything; authority is impossible in that context
@@nsf001-3 When is law not defined arbitrarily?
The authority every individual person has to rectify an injustice. It naturally rests in each person. The Law of Self-Defense has many entailments that allow for non-consensual interventions.
@@perrymason9942 I may feel I rectified injustice but society may collectively treat me as an unstable person that didn't dispense proper punishment. How can a side in a quarrel be objective about punishment? It's impossible. Judges are supposed to be impartial and thus able to be better at dispensing proportional punishment. Their ruling legitimizes punishment in the eyes of society as well. But all that is besides the point. Where does court get authority to judge when criminal doesn't agree on arbitration?
What is the foundation of authority itself? Force. Strength and the ability to wield it. Authority is amoral. People submit to an authority for one of two reasons: 1. They stand to benefit from it (protection, prosperity), or 2. They haven't the means to fight against it and win.
The "criminal" never signed a contract promising never to break the law. The court's authority to pass judgement is based on its ability to enforce its judgement. It's sheep paying a wolf pack to bite a lone wolf for attacking one of them. Money and violence. Whether or not it is just is entirely subjective. So what I'd like to know is how this anarchist solution is really any different to the government/mafia it is supposed to replace? It just seems like doing the same things but possibly cheaper and more efficiently.
It doesn't sound like the minimal state is compatible with what Huemer is arguing for either. Because by outlawing all others from acting as arbitrators or protectors they are in fact assuming authority that others do not have.
I just watched Peter Quinones drivel on and on about why Libertarianism = bad. This was the breath of fresh air I needed. Anyone know what happened to that guy? He just read some Curtis Yarvin and then was seduced by him?
He essentially let his sense of urgency get the best of him and gave up on principles even though he claims he still wants to have a free society. And while it’s totally not 100% his fault, he’s still responsible for giving in to collective guilt when it comes to libertarians and libertarianism. Because there was libertarians or better said Lolberts giving really tone deaf arguments in favor of voluntary mandates back in 2020, he thought it was so self evident that we need to get the government involved to ban any voluntary mandates coming from the private sector in the work force. And anyone that didn’t steadfastly agree with him was called a Lolbert or a boxcar. Which is hilarious because I don’t think Peter Quinones realizes that the term Lolbert was already being used way before he learned it by one of my favorite libertarians Jim Jesus who did The Lolberts podcast. Anyways digressing a little bit, it seems Peter Quinones went down the post libertarian rabbit hole and isn’t interested in finding out if there’s better arguments in favor of libertarianism or anarcho capitalism. Instead he’s been reduced to constantly arguing that libertarians and anarchists are doing nothing because they care about principles more than power. And while I can sympathize with that assessment, it’s still collective guilt because he’s generalizing all libertarians and anarchists based off of what one or a few Lolberts said. So if a libertarian or anarchist voluntarily gives money to a libertarian public interest law firm like the Institute For Justice or the Pacific Legal Foundation, etc., is that still doing nothing just because it had nothing to do with voting or running for office? Of course not
Can't justify something which contains no justice
Basically justice is being just.
Just to be clear: Huemer rejects the Rothbardian approach to ethics. While he is what led Huemer to ancap initially, he's critiqued his views and the views of absolutist libertarians. He rejects the "NAP" approach (as most philosophers likely would).
Rejecting "NAP" = crypto-authoriatran
Libertarianism is a sham anyway. A few good ideas, everything else is bunk. You either have voluntary participation or you don't. State or no state. There is no middle ground. No it doesn't matter how many ways Block can turn himself inside out trying to justify state terrorism
Yes, but I would surmise it's because of the limits of the "self-ownership" argument, which I myself have rejected more in favor of a self-stewardship assumption. I also think ownership still doesn't unwound overarching moral principles. I think the absolutist libertarians have wrongly accepted too much of the fact/value distinction from bad philosophy. I left a comment on Bob's website -- here's an excerpt of where I believe Huemer comes from:
"The primary thing that strikes me is this: Huemer might have shied away from using the term "natural law", but his argument is a natural law one. This is because I believe this approach is the "common sense one."...I like what the great Peter Kreeft says -- he calls St. Thomas Aquinas the"apostle of common sense."...The more I listened to Huemer, the more I heard arguments that come right out of the Scholastic tradition. To take one example, his comment about the limits of private property and justifying certain instances of aggression fully paralleled the School of Salamanca in the 16th century (see the wonderful Alejandro Chaufen on this: archive.org/details/christiansforfre00chaf).
At a broader level, I believe Huemer's position is a natural entailment from St. Thomas' paradigm on the 'Law' and resultant political order. See here, as some of the similarities are uncanny (isidore.co/aquinas/TenCommandments.htm#9). Even Huemer's position on how people know what's right but act selfishly otherwise is a modern way of defining the Law of Concupiscence.
Huemer in large part is using common sense and the law of non-contradiction. Aquinas spoke directly to this point in defining the "Law" that God expects man to follow, and in defining those "laws" that are unjust and have no authority. Again, see the above excerpt and the parallels are striking."
Love this book but Huemer's substack is such a troll.
I honestly sub'd to your work and have for over a decade now - but just found out I'm blocked by you on "X"? I can't even remember an interaction let alone any time I would be derogatory towards you. At least use mute so people can see your work. But blocking so frivolously or en mass? Utterly destroys character imo.
What's your Twitter handle? I don't recognize you from these account.
@@BobMurphyAncap Skyriffs - I engaged with your posts, and maybe it's gone but the last reply I see is me saying "Wholesome internet is my fav