Michael Huemer offers a rare, first-person map of how a professional philosopher arrived at anarcho-capitalism, not through political maneuvering, but through a relentless application of common-sense ethics to the state. The piece is notable because it bypasses the usual partisan shouting matches to ask a foundational question: why do we grant the government a moral license to do things that would be considered crimes if done by a private citizen? For the busy reader, this is a chance to examine the bedrock assumptions of modern governance without the noise of current election cycles.
The Personality of Politics
Huemer begins by grounding his ideology in psychology rather than policy papers, suggesting that political orientation is deeply tied to personality traits. He observes that "some people are natural-born libertarians," citing correlations with traits like frankness, a love for abstract logic, and a distinct lack of intuitive respect for social hierarchies. He writes, "I have little intuitive respect for social hierarchies. I don't perceive people who are at the top of a social hierarchy as more deserving of respect or entitled to special privileges, compared to, say, my plumber."
This framing is effective because it humanizes the ideology, stripping away the stereotype of the cold, calculating economist. Huemer argues that his worldview stems from a simple inability to feel that the powerful deserve special treatment. However, critics might note that relying on "intuition" as a primary data point can be risky; what feels intuitive to one personality type may feel alien to another, potentially limiting the argument's universal appeal.
From Socialism to Anarchy
The narrative arc of Huemer's intellectual journey is a classic case of radicalization through exposure to counter-arguments. He admits he started as a socialist in college, influenced by high school debate materials, before being "rescued" by Ayn Rand's fiction. He describes a specific passage from Atlas Shrugged that exposed the logical flaws in the Marxist dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Huemer notes, "To implement this noble-sounding ideal, one would of course have to assess each person's abilities, as well as each person's needs. To make a long story short: Everyone winds up trying to demonstrate how little ability they have... and how much need they have."
While Huemer rejects Rand's broader philosophical system, he credits her with powerful critiques of central planning. His transition from minimal state libertarianism to anarcho-capitalism came after engaging with the works of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. He recounts his initial skepticism, admitting his reaction was "that's crazy," but concludes that "if they have a sufficiently open mind to read the damn books, Rothbard and Friedman have addressed all the obvious objections." This admission of intellectual humility is refreshing in a field often dominated by dogma.
The Core Ethical Test
The most significant contribution of Huemer's work is his distinction between how libertarians and non-libertarians view the state. He argues that the divide isn't about the strength of rights, but about consistency. "To arrive at libertarianism, you need only accept some perfectly moderate, common sense ethical intuitions... and apply them consistently to the state," he writes. He points out the double standard: "Non-libertarians don't generally think that you or I may go around stealing people's money to give it to the poor. They don't think that a church may hire armed guards to kidnap people who are consuming unhealthy substances and lock them in cages. But they think the state may do these things."
This is the piece's intellectual anchor. Huemer contends that the belief in the state's "special moral status" is the only thing that allows for policies like drug prohibition or immigration restrictions, which he views as unjust. He suggests that observers often dismiss libertarianism because they reject "absolutist" moral assumptions, but he argues the philosophy actually rests on "much more modest" foundations. The argument lands because it forces the reader to confront the arbitrary nature of state authority without needing to accept extreme property rights theories.
Non-libertarians make special exceptions for the state; libertarians apply the same moral constraints to the state as they apply to everyone else.
Justice Before the Law
Huemer extends this logic to the legal system in his later work, arguing that the legal world is dominated by "baseless and irrational ideas." He challenges the notion that judges and juries should ignore their own moral judgment in favor of strict legal fidelity. In his book Justice Before the Law, he posits that agents in the legal system should "place justice ahead of fidelity to the law." This move from political philosophy to legal theory demonstrates the practical application of his core thesis: if the law itself is unjust, following it is not a moral virtue.
Bottom Line
Huemer's strongest argument is his insistence that the state's authority is not a given, but a hypothesis that must survive the same ethical scrutiny applied to individuals. The biggest vulnerability in his approach is the assumption that "common sense" ethics are universally shared, which may not hold up in a society with deeply divergent cultural values. Readers should watch for how his framework handles complex scenarios where individual rights clash, such as public health crises, where the "special authority" of the state is most fiercely defended.