---
product_id: 3558909
title: "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey"
price: "599.92 DT"
currency: TND
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 13
url: https://www.desertcart.tn/products/3558909-the-problem-of-political-authority-an-examination-of-the-right
store_origin: TN
region: Tunisia
---

# The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey

**Price:** 599.92 DT
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey
- **How much does it cost?** 599.92 DT with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.tn](https://www.desertcart.tn/products/3558909-the-problem-of-political-authority-an-examination-of-the-right)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

The state is often ascribed a special sort of authority, one that obliges citizens to obey its commands and entitles the state to enforce those commands through threats of violence. This book argues that this notion is a moral illusion: no one has ever possessed that sort of authority.

Review: Groundbreaking work in political philosophy - This is the best political philosophy book I've ever read so far. Michael Huemer relies on the best argumentative strategy there is, which is starting from premises that are more plausible than the argument's conclusion. I'm confident he was successful in this strategy, for he starts from moral judgements that are uncontroversial for most people (at least in liberal democracies), regardless of their political/ideological preference; once one accepts these judgements as premises, one will have a really hard time trying to reject Huemer's conclusion - i.e., that no state has political authority. Another strength of the book lies in the fact that Huemer uses a really clear language, making all the relevant conceptual distinctions, thereby avoiding (or at least greatly reducing the possibility of) argumentative confusions. This is a really good thing, especially for such a lengthy book, since it makes the reading process more fluid and pleasant. Part I is nearly perfect. Huemer takes down all the major attempts to justify political authority. He builds the strongest versions he can of these theories and then shows in a very clear and compelling way where the arguments for them fail. The only thing I slightly disagree with in this first part of the book is when Huemer tries to argue that citizens of a state are victims of some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, for I'm not quite convinced people in general adequately satisfy all of the conditions necessary for the syndrome to take place. Other than that minor detail, Part I is by itself already well worth the money. Part II tries to provide a plausible account for the feasibility of an anarcho-capitalist society. In order to accomplish it, Huemer doesn't rely on unrealistic expectations about human nature. He makes an explicit rejection of any utopian account of a social system. Before reading this part of the book, I had many problems with the idea of an anarcho-capitalist society, but most of them either disappeared or were greatly reduced after reading Huemer's account. There are generally two remarkable strengths in the second part of the book. The first is that the author uses empirical evidence to support all of his major claims. The second strength is the strategy of comparing the governmental provision of services with the provision of the same services by private agencies. This strategy is a really good one, for it shows that a lot of problems people might identify in the private supply of services like protection and arbitration are actually problems with the governmental provision of such services. This is not to say that in an anarcho-capitalist society there couldn't be serious shortcomings, but simply to note that a lot of possible problems in this kind of society that people might point out to are already very serious problems in our government-dominated societies, and that one should take all of it into account when comparing the two kind of social systems. Despite all of the plausible arguments, supported by empirical evidence, I still don't share much of Huemer's optimism about the implementation of anarcho-capitalism in the future. I don't think it's unreasonable to think anarcho-capitalism is a desirable and/or feasible social system, but I'm not sure that the fact that some governments are already outsourcing some of its central functions to private agencies will make it very likely to cause the government to be as weakened as expected by the author. Either way, I must congratulate Huemer for making a reasonable and realistic account of anarcho-capitalism. To sum up, TPPA is a clear, very well reasoned and compelling case against political authority, as well as a reasonable defense of the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism under realistic conditions. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy, from scholars to laypeople. It's well worth the read, even if you ultimately disagree with the central arguments of the book.
Review: Possibly the best work in Political Philosophy I have seen. - The book is a gem, destined to become a classic, and any serious student of the field should have it on their shelf. They should even, dare I say, read it. The topic that Humer’s astonishing tour de force concerns itself with is the moral and ethical underpinnings of state power, an area known in political philosophy as the "problem of political authority". In considering the justification for the state, a nagging question naturally arises. Most people would claim it is morally impermissible for your neighbor to force you to give money to a charity of his choice at gunpoint. However, in stark contrast, most people would claim it is permissible for the state to do essentially the same thing, that is, to extort taxes from you using the threat of force in order to spend those funds on projects other than your own. Most people appear to claim there is an important difference between these cases — otherwise, they would not believe in the legitimacy of the state. The eponymous problem of political authority is the question of what the distinction between these cases might be — on what basis, if any, might we justify this difference in treatment between the behavior we consider ethically justified from individual actors versus the power we accord to the state. Huemer systematically addresses the justifications that have been articulated for political authority over the centuries, from hypothetical social contract theory to consequentialism and everything in between. I will give away the punchline by noting that his arguments would appear to fatally damage all of them. Political philosophers often start by attempting to construct a complete moral framework within which they justify their positions. Huemer takes an entirely different approach. He does not assume that we all agree on a single universal moral framework. He only assumes that most of us generally share similar moral intuitions about certain sorts of situations in the average case. (The strongest sort of assumption he demands is that his reader agree that beating people up without provocation is usually bad.) Because he demands that the reader agree with him on so few things and so weakly, Huemer’s argument gains enormous strength, since there is no need to accept an all-encompassing ethical theory to believe the rest of his arguments. On the basis of very pedestrian ethical assumptions, Huemer manages to build a case against any moral justification for political authority whatsoever. He engages, attacks and destroys arguments of all sorts with panache. Even John Rawls famous “A Theory of Justice” (perhaps the most cited work written in philosophy in the last century) is mercilessly examined under bright lights and staked through the heart. One of the book’s greatest strengths is the simplicity and lucidity of his prose. Unlike many of his academic peers, Huemer’s writing is crystal clear and (nearly) jargon free. A bright ten year old would have no difficulty with the language. He does not seek to conceal weakness beneath an avalanche of polysyllabic words and mile long sentences. Instead, he makes his arguments so straightforward to understand that there is little or no room to disagree with him. I am uncertain as to whether Huemer will persuade many people. As Swift once observed, “it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” Most people hold their political positions not as a result of rational contemplation but because they were exposed to a set of ideas at an early age and have an emotional attachment to them that is not easily altered. The fact that Huemer is arguing for unfamiliar idea that goes against most conventional wisdom is probably more important to the average reader than the razor sharp edge to which he has honed his arguments. Never the less, in a hypothetical world in which all chose their views on the basis of rational consideration, Huemer would be changing hearts and minds by the trainload.

## Features

- Used Book in Good Condition

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #295,834 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #60 in Anarchism #109 in Political Ideologies #185 in Political History (Books) |
| Customer Reviews | 4.7 out of 5 stars 216 Reviews |

## Images

![The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61+b5UA9kfL.jpg)

## Available Options

This product comes in different **Media Language, Media Format** options.

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Groundbreaking work in political philosophy
*by H***O on August 4, 2015*

This is the best political philosophy book I've ever read so far. Michael Huemer relies on the best argumentative strategy there is, which is starting from premises that are more plausible than the argument's conclusion. I'm confident he was successful in this strategy, for he starts from moral judgements that are uncontroversial for most people (at least in liberal democracies), regardless of their political/ideological preference; once one accepts these judgements as premises, one will have a really hard time trying to reject Huemer's conclusion - i.e., that no state has political authority. Another strength of the book lies in the fact that Huemer uses a really clear language, making all the relevant conceptual distinctions, thereby avoiding (or at least greatly reducing the possibility of) argumentative confusions. This is a really good thing, especially for such a lengthy book, since it makes the reading process more fluid and pleasant. Part I is nearly perfect. Huemer takes down all the major attempts to justify political authority. He builds the strongest versions he can of these theories and then shows in a very clear and compelling way where the arguments for them fail. The only thing I slightly disagree with in this first part of the book is when Huemer tries to argue that citizens of a state are victims of some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, for I'm not quite convinced people in general adequately satisfy all of the conditions necessary for the syndrome to take place. Other than that minor detail, Part I is by itself already well worth the money. Part II tries to provide a plausible account for the feasibility of an anarcho-capitalist society. In order to accomplish it, Huemer doesn't rely on unrealistic expectations about human nature. He makes an explicit rejection of any utopian account of a social system. Before reading this part of the book, I had many problems with the idea of an anarcho-capitalist society, but most of them either disappeared or were greatly reduced after reading Huemer's account. There are generally two remarkable strengths in the second part of the book. The first is that the author uses empirical evidence to support all of his major claims. The second strength is the strategy of comparing the governmental provision of services with the provision of the same services by private agencies. This strategy is a really good one, for it shows that a lot of problems people might identify in the private supply of services like protection and arbitration are actually problems with the governmental provision of such services. This is not to say that in an anarcho-capitalist society there couldn't be serious shortcomings, but simply to note that a lot of possible problems in this kind of society that people might point out to are already very serious problems in our government-dominated societies, and that one should take all of it into account when comparing the two kind of social systems. Despite all of the plausible arguments, supported by empirical evidence, I still don't share much of Huemer's optimism about the implementation of anarcho-capitalism in the future. I don't think it's unreasonable to think anarcho-capitalism is a desirable and/or feasible social system, but I'm not sure that the fact that some governments are already outsourcing some of its central functions to private agencies will make it very likely to cause the government to be as weakened as expected by the author. Either way, I must congratulate Huemer for making a reasonable and realistic account of anarcho-capitalism. To sum up, TPPA is a clear, very well reasoned and compelling case against political authority, as well as a reasonable defense of the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism under realistic conditions. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy, from scholars to laypeople. It's well worth the read, even if you ultimately disagree with the central arguments of the book.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Possibly the best work in Political Philosophy I have seen.
*by P***R on March 5, 2013*

The book is a gem, destined to become a classic, and any serious student of the field should have it on their shelf. They should even, dare I say, read it. The topic that Humer’s astonishing tour de force concerns itself with is the moral and ethical underpinnings of state power, an area known in political philosophy as the "problem of political authority". In considering the justification for the state, a nagging question naturally arises. Most people would claim it is morally impermissible for your neighbor to force you to give money to a charity of his choice at gunpoint. However, in stark contrast, most people would claim it is permissible for the state to do essentially the same thing, that is, to extort taxes from you using the threat of force in order to spend those funds on projects other than your own. Most people appear to claim there is an important difference between these cases — otherwise, they would not believe in the legitimacy of the state. The eponymous problem of political authority is the question of what the distinction between these cases might be — on what basis, if any, might we justify this difference in treatment between the behavior we consider ethically justified from individual actors versus the power we accord to the state. Huemer systematically addresses the justifications that have been articulated for political authority over the centuries, from hypothetical social contract theory to consequentialism and everything in between. I will give away the punchline by noting that his arguments would appear to fatally damage all of them. Political philosophers often start by attempting to construct a complete moral framework within which they justify their positions. Huemer takes an entirely different approach. He does not assume that we all agree on a single universal moral framework. He only assumes that most of us generally share similar moral intuitions about certain sorts of situations in the average case. (The strongest sort of assumption he demands is that his reader agree that beating people up without provocation is usually bad.) Because he demands that the reader agree with him on so few things and so weakly, Huemer’s argument gains enormous strength, since there is no need to accept an all-encompassing ethical theory to believe the rest of his arguments. On the basis of very pedestrian ethical assumptions, Huemer manages to build a case against any moral justification for political authority whatsoever. He engages, attacks and destroys arguments of all sorts with panache. Even John Rawls famous “A Theory of Justice” (perhaps the most cited work written in philosophy in the last century) is mercilessly examined under bright lights and staked through the heart. One of the book’s greatest strengths is the simplicity and lucidity of his prose. Unlike many of his academic peers, Huemer’s writing is crystal clear and (nearly) jargon free. A bright ten year old would have no difficulty with the language. He does not seek to conceal weakness beneath an avalanche of polysyllabic words and mile long sentences. Instead, he makes his arguments so straightforward to understand that there is little or no room to disagree with him. I am uncertain as to whether Huemer will persuade many people. As Swift once observed, “it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” Most people hold their political positions not as a result of rational contemplation but because they were exposed to a set of ideas at an early age and have an emotional attachment to them that is not easily altered. The fact that Huemer is arguing for unfamiliar idea that goes against most conventional wisdom is probably more important to the average reader than the razor sharp edge to which he has honed his arguments. Never the less, in a hypothetical world in which all chose their views on the basis of rational consideration, Huemer would be changing hearts and minds by the trainload.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ A persuasive case for free-market anarchism with a foundation in common-sense morality
*by H***R on October 11, 2020*

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Prior to this I read the first half of Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" as an introduction of anarcho-capitalist theory. Although Rothbard's foundation is on a hatred for the state (not trying to detract from Rothbard) Michael Heumer takes a different approach: He takes common sense views on morality that we use every day and apply it to agents of the state and asks: "Why should 535 people in Washington be entitled to issue commands to 300 million others? And why should others obey?." Or what gives states the right to tax, spend, regulate, legislate, arrest and incarcerate where it would be considered extortion, kidnapping and intimidation for normal people like you I try the same on others? His conclusion is that states rule by might rather than right and has no moral authority to do any of these things and we have no moral obligation to obey. He uses his philosophizing powers to expose flaws in the ideas of the social contract, democracy, consequentialism and fairness that all attempt to legitimize governments (and fail to do so.) He goes through the psychology of authority and predation to bridge into how common functions delegated to the state--like police, military and courts--and how these could be provided much more cheaply, efficiently and ethically as a good or service on the market economy. Not only because it's practical and leads to good results--it would-- but because it's ethical, voluntary and doesn't rely arbitrarily on coercion through state diktat. In the last chapter he cools down a common skeptical impulse even those who are sympathetic to anarchy would have on it: That it won't be possible to achieve and anarchist society since regions have governments and most people aren't persuaded of it for it to ever be adopted. In response he says massive social changes have occurred throughout human history that people's of prior time periods couldn't have wrapped their heads around (slavery, genocide, gladiatorial combat, death penalty are looked down upon especially in liberal democracies) and being that most people agree with the common moral principles that lay the foundations for anarchism that there would be a tendency for them to apply those moral principles more broadly to the state as history carries on, which may lead to its gradual abolition. He doesn't give any certainties but he gives hope and optimism. He does use common-sense morality as the foundation for anarchism but that begs the question: What qualifies as common-sense morality and why must we live by it? In order to get answers to that question I would have to read his 2005 "Ethical Intuitionism" which he claims that "(i) there are objective moral truths; (ii) we know these through an immediate, intellectual awareness, or 'intuition'; and (iii) knowing them gives us reasons to act independent of our desires." I just bought it and will write a review on to explain once I find out.

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.tn/products/3558909-the-problem-of-political-authority-an-examination-of-the-right](https://www.desertcart.tn/products/3558909-the-problem-of-political-authority-an-examination-of-the-right)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Tunisia*
*Store origin: TN*
*Last updated: 2026-09-05*