Political Theory

Re: Michael Huemer's article on Cato

FlyingAxe — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:09:54 GMT

Actually, I was wrong. He believes in NAP: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/huemers_common-.html The only difference is: he defends it on moral intuitionist grounds, not either a priori approach like Hoppe or Rothbard or consequentialist grounds (which in my opinion is not a defense at all). Which may or may not be a strong approach.

Re: Michael Huemer's article on Cato

Meistro — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:12:19 GMT

His definition of terrorist should specify civilians imo.

Michael Huemer's article on Cato

FlyingAxe — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:39:34 GMT

I have asked before if anyone has read Michael Huemer's libertarian book, and aparently nobody has. (David Gordon told me over e-mail that he is planning to review it one day.) I still haven't had a chance to read it myself, but here is an article on Cato Unbound in which Huemer outlines basic points of his book:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/the-problem-of-authority/

(Warning: He does not use "NAP" or "property rights" anywhere. I know, the first one alone drops him a whole letter grade. I don't think he thinks NAP is a cohesive concept, but maybe he doesn't fully understand the way it's used by libertarians. But seriously, I think the fact that he does not define property rights makes his position weaker.)