This is a simplified version of Chapter 1 of The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

The goal is the same as always: take something that’s usually taught in dense academic language and make it actually understandable. (Admittedly, though, Huemer is already great at making difficult philosophy accessible. This version just makes it even more accessible.)

The Problem of Political Authority

by Michael Huemer

Abridged by Raymond Chuang

PART I: The Illusion of Authority

1. The Problem of Political Authority

1.1 A political Parable

Let’s start with a story. You live in a small village. There is a lot of crime. Bad guys steal and destroy people’s things. It looks like no one is doing anything about it. So you and your family take some guns and go catch some bad guys. You point your gun at a bad guy and lock him in your basement. You do that for some other bad guys. You give the bad guys food so they don’t get too hungry. You plan to keep the bad guys in your basement “for a few years to teach them a lesson” (Huemer 3).

After doing the same thing for a few weeks, you go around your neighborhood. You ask your neighbor, “Have you noticed that there are fewer bad guys?” He nods. You say, “Well, you should thank me.” You tell him how you have been catching bad guys by using your guns and locking them in your basement. Your neighbor looks at you with a strange look. You continue: “Now, I’m here because you have to give me money…because I caught all those bad guys. This month, you have to give me $100.”

Your neighbor stares at you and doesn’t move. You tell him, “If you don’t give me the money, then you are also a bad guy, and I will lock you in my basement with the other bad guys.” You let your neighbor see that you have a gun, and you tell him that if he does not give the money, you will force him to give you the money.

If you did something like this, how would your neighbors react? Would they be happy to give you the money?

Not likely. Most likely, you would notice these things: First, almost nobody would think they owe you anything. Some people might pay because they don’t want to be locked in your basement. Others might pay because they hate the other bad guys. But almost nobody would think it is their duty to give you money. If some neighbor does not pay you, other neighbors would more likely say good things about them than bad things.

Second, most people would think that what you did was crazy. They would think that when you asked for money, it is extortion. And when you lock the bad guys in your basement, it is kidnapping. Because you acted so crazy, and because you think other people need to thank you and give you money, people will think you really are crazy.

“What does this story have to do with political philosophy?” (Huemer 4). In the story, you acted like a simple government. Of course, you did not do all the things that a larger government does, but you did two of the most important things that governments do: (1) you punished bad guys who hurt other people or don’t listen to you, and (2) you collected money so that you can keep catching bad guys. If the government does these two things, these two things are known as the criminal justice system and the tax system. If you do these two things, these two things are called kidnapping and extortion.

It looks like the things you did are the same things a government does. But most people would think it’s okay for the government to do these things, and not okay for you to do these things. Most people support the government when it catches bad guys, and most people feel like they need to pay their taxes. Most people also think that the government should punish tax evaders, and they think it is the government’s right to do so.

This shows how most people feel about the government. Most people feel that governments are ethically allowed to do things that other people can’t do. Also, most people feel that we have special obligations to the government. Most people think we don’t have these obligations to other people, even if these other people act the same way the government does. This is not just about the law. It is also not just about what people can get away with. “The point is that our ethical judgments” are very different when it comes to government and nongovernment people (Huemer 4). When nongovernment people do some things, people think it’s bad. When the government does some things, people think it’s good.

Why do we give the government this special moral status? Does it make sense to give them this special moral status? “This is the problem of political authority” (Huemer 5).

1.2 The concept of authority: a first pass

In ordinary moral thinking, what is the difference between your actions and the government’s actions? One idea is that, even though your actions and the government’s actions might look the same, they are actually different. That is, they are different behaviors. For example, you might think that a difference is that you didn’t give the bad guys fair jury trials. Maybe that is why what you did is bad, and what the government does is okay or good.

A second idea is that you are doing the same thing that the government does, but the only difference is who is doing those things. You are doing something bad in the story because, even if you acted just like the government, you are still not the government.

This second idea is what I call political authority. Political authority has two important aspects:

1. Political legitimacy: the government has the right to make laws and enforce them by coercion — “in short, the right to rule” (Huemer 5).
2. Political obligation: citizens must obey the government, even when they normally don’t have to obey other nongovernment people

“If a government has ‘authority’, then both (i) and (ii) exist: the government has the right to rule, and the citizens have the obligation to obey” (Huemer 6).

There is a difference between political obligations and moral obligations. For example, it is illegal to murder. When there is a government, it is both our political obligation and moral obligation not to murder people. However, if there is no government, then we do not have a political obligation not to murder, but we still have a moral obligation not to murder. But there are other things that we must do or not do just because the law says so. These are political obligations, not moral obligations. For example, if the government tells you to pay $1,000 in taxes, then, if you think the taxes are too high, you do not feel like you have the right to not pay that much. If you think the taxes are too low, you do not feel like you have to give the government extra money. So, from most people’s point of view, paying taxes is a political obligation.

If you believe that the government has political authority, you don’t have to think that political authority is unconditional or absolute. You also don’t need to think that all governments have political authority. For example, you might think that the government has authority only if it respects human rights and allows citizens to participate in politics, so you might think that tyrannical governments have no authority. You might also think that even okay governments cannot force you to do certain things, like committing murder, and that citizens don’t have to obey the government if it tells them to commit murder. So, if you believe in political authority, you don’t have to believe that political authority is unconditional or absolute.

However, we should still remember that most people think that the government has lots of political authority and that it can make people do things that would be wrong or unethical if a nongovernment person makes them do these things instead.