Comments on: Michael Huemer Responds to Critics, Part 1 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/ Free Markets and Social Justice Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:55:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.2 By: JuHoansi http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-78217 Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:56:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-78217 And if you asked me to pick a date to be born in America, I would pick about 9,000 yrs BP. As I’m sure most people would if they knew anything about anthropology or paleo-environments. There is more actual, as well as threat, of violence now, than at any other time in human history. There was no totalitarian surveillance, no militarized police, no armed check point borders, no poverty, no contaminated air, water, land, etc, no forced labor (called a ‘job’), no security guards, no copyright laws, no threat of nuclear war, no wealthy class controlling lower classes, no monopoly ownership of resources, no superfund toxic sites, and almost no slavery.

]]>
By: Aspire http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-69457 Fri, 13 May 2016 22:19:33 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-69457 … [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/ […]

]]>
By: Marshall Eubanks http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-66777 Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:20:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-66777 An obvious rebuttal is that the shareholder made explicit and prior agreement to this arrangement when he purchased shares. Government cannot make the same claim.

]]>
By: Marshall Eubanks http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-66775 Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:19:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-66775 Disagree with this. Anarcho-capitalism (nor syndicalism) is not assumed at the onset. It is merely a potential solution to the problem of social organization absent government.

Moreover, “go with what works I guess” is a totally valid reading of voluntaryism, and therefore of Huemer’s fundamental position. There is no need for theoreticians to formulate, dictate, impose, or establish anarcho-capitalism in any of its details. Voluntaryism essentially requires that all of these things happen in a spontaneous fashion. At best, anarcho capitalism is nothing more than a prognostication of the eventual form all this spontaneity will produce.

]]>
By: Robert H. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-53162 Mon, 01 Sep 2014 02:55:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-53162 Not legally, no. For example, tribal customary law is normally personal (individuals carry their law with them when they travel, at least when they are defendants), whereas state law is normally territorial (you are governed by the law of the new state you are in when you travel). This is not the only significant example.

]]>
By: Sam Grove http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-53157 Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:16:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-53157 ” It involves postulating a special moral status for a particular agent,
“the state,” such that (a) other agents have duties to obey the state in
a wide range of circumstances in which they would not owe obedience to
any other agent, and (b) the state is entitled to do things that would
be clearly wrong for any other agent. This violation of the ideal of
moral equality calls for an explanation”

The explanation is pretty simple, it’s because too many people want (or have been persuaded to accept the necessity of) an exception to common moral restrictions. Anything after that is justification.

]]>
By: Sam Grove http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-53155 Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:14:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-53155 “They point out that most stateless environments have been dominated by tribalism…”

But the state is merely institutionalized tribalism.

]]>
By: Property and Authority: Reply to Huemer | Bleeding Heart Libertarians http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-35668 Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:04:38 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-35668 […] philosophical quality of any other symposium we’ve run. In that vein, I would like to reply to some of Huemer’s criticisms of my post on his […]

]]>
By: Will McLean http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-35619 Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:37:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-35619 I see Seven Samurai as an instructive parable for how Anarcho-Capitalism would work in practice. Beginning in a state of anarchy, a small group of individuals hire other private individuals to protect them. Soon, a small group of the protected decide to defect and make a different plan. They are quickly coerced and conscripted to join the common defense. I think most viewers would agree that the hired protectors were more just and moral than the defectors. Still, coercion happened.

]]>
By: Will McLean http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/michael-huemer-responds-to-critics-part1/#comment-35602 Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:07:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=6462#comment-35602 You might equally ask what puts the board of a corporation above an individual minority shareholder. The board can give the corporation’s money to charity in spite of the individual shareholder’s objection, including that shareholder’s portion. The reverse is not true. So special moral status of certain agents is not just a state issue.

]]>