anarchism

the vigilante example

• Michael Huemer

• someone knocks on your door and tells you they’ve collected all of the criminals in the area and he wants payment for keeping you safe if you do not pay you will join the criminals

• he then tells you you also cannot eat eggs or grapes

• what authority does the vigilante have to do any of this?

• this is essentially what the government does, but they have authority over us and so we allow them to tell us what to do

parental authority

• is a child obliged to obey their parent and should the parent be making demands of their child? ultimately yes, its in the Childs best interest to be somewhat controlled by a parent, they do not yet have autonomy

• often children want a reward for behaving well when they’re young

• as we get older, we don’t have to obey our parents because we gain autonomy and we know what’s best for ourselves

is the state like a parent?

• can the state make the claim that they have peoples best interests at heart and thats why people should obey them?

• the state ultimately have the right to make laws and punish those who don’t follow them because they’re aiming to protect people

• the state have a responsibility to protect those within its territory from violence against ourselves or our property

Max Weber’s definition of the state

a political organisation that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate us of force and offers to protect everyone within a certain territory

the social contract

• the most popular idea is that the state derives it power from the signing of a hypothetical social contract

• key influence: Thomas Hobbes

• we all want the same stuff and we are all paranoid because we think that people are trying to take what we have away from us

• we want authority to scare people from taking our things by implementing punishment

Hobbes’ argument for authoritarian legitimacy

1) we are all naturally able to threaten each other

2) we all naturally have a reason to threaten each other

3) our natural state is therefore one of war

4) we don’t want to be in a state of war

5) only a strong sovereign power an lead us out of the natural state of war

did we sign the social contract?

• no one ever actually sat us down to sign a social contract

• the main argument is tacit consent, we consent by continuing to exist in a given state

• another suggestion is hypothetical consent, if we had to sign a contract we would do

• although neither of these are actually legally binding

Huemer against tacit consent

• Huemer identifies 4 types of tacit consent: through silence, through acceptance of benefits, through participation and through presence

• Huemer points out that contracts must allow parties to opt out but tacit consent for the social contract doesn’t allow for that, contractual obligations must be mutual and conditional

anarchism

• collective anarchism: solidarity is the first human law, freedom is the second, emphasis on collective ownership

• individual anarchism: the idea that we ought to be free from external authority

• however, if we don’t need the state then why do we still have it?