Michael Huemer - Anarchy, Capitalism, and Progress

1. 0:00 – 1:07

   Intro

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel0:00

      Hello, folks, and welcome to the Lunar Society Podcast. Today, it is my great privilege to talk with Professor Michael Huemer. He is, in my opinion, the best philosopher alive. He's a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, and he's written more than 70 academic articles on epistemology, ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, and political philosophy. He has also written eight books, the newest one of which is this Introduction to Philosophy: Knowledge, Reality, and Value. I highly, highly recommend it. It's incredibly clear and easy to read, and covers all of the arguments in philosophy that I've been curious about since I was a teenager. So I've included a link to his Amazon page, uh, in the description where you can go and buy it. Today, we had an incredibly wide-ranging conversation about a previous book of his, The Problem with Political Authority. Just a reminder, as always, to please, please share this podcast on social media or with your friends if you enjoy it. This is a small and growing podcast, so, uh, word of mouth really, really helps. Without further ado, here's Professor Michael Huemer. (instrumental music plays)

2. 1:07 – 3:25

   The Problem of Political Authority

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07

      Okay, Professor Huemer, uh, what is The Problem with Political Authority? Why did you write this book?

   2. MHMichael Huemer1:13

      Yeah, so, uh, you know, here's a copy of the book, uh, case cover, and, uh, you can order it on Amazon, that's the important thing.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:19

      (laughs)

   4. MHMichael Huemer1:20

      (laughs) Or, you know, anywhere. Um, yeah, so I, you know, the, the problem referred to in the title is a philosophical problem about government. Uh, basically, the problem is what's the basis for the government's authority? And, you know, and what, what I mean by the government's authority is ... So first of all, it's usually thought that the government is entitled to give other people commands and force them to obey in the situations where you- nobody else would be entitled to give commands and force people to obey, right? So, like, they could give commands that y- you don't, you don't already have to do, but you have to do them because, only because the government commanded it. Uh, and then the other part of this notion of authority is that, uh, it's generally thought that you have a moral obligation to obey, right? To obey the law merely because it's the law. And, again, you know, the law could be things that you're not already obligated to do, right? So, example, if I decide that, uh, I'm going to collect money from other people to give to the poor, right? (laughs) Like I started a charity and collecting money to help the poor, and I decide I'm not getting enough contributions voluntarily, so I decide to just, like, force people to pay, right? Um, if I do this, this is called extortion, and, uh, you know, I'm gonna wind up in jail, right? (laughs) But besides that I'm gonna wind up in jail, most people will be disapproving of this and think that, number one, I shouldn't be doing that. Number two, they don't have to pay me, right? (laughs) Okay. But when the government does this, this is called taxation, and, you know, social welfare programs, which is, uh, generally most people approve of, right? And they think that the government is entitled to do that, and that we are obligated to pay. So, and that's just an illustration of the idea that the government has a special moral status, right? That most people think they have a kind of status that puts them above other ordinary people. And so the question is why? Like (laughs) , you know, why do they, why do they get to do all this stuff that nobody else can do, and why should we obey them, right?

3. 3:25 – 9:39

   Common sense ethics

   1. MHMichael Huemer3:25

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel3:27

      So you're pointing out a contradiction between common sense morality and common sense political philosophy. Why should we resolve that contradiction in favor of, uh, common sense intuitions rather than, you know, the prevalent political views?

   3. MHMichael Huemer3:40

      Yeah, um, common sense ethical intuition. I mean, so, yeah, so there are the intuitions that you would apply to kind of ordinary people, and then there are the intuitions people have about the state. (laughs) Um, but I think if you raise this issue with most people, um, they will see that some sort of explanation is required, right? So, like, most people have the initial reaction that the government has authority, but they, um, they will not generally say, a- and "Yeah, that's just self-evident and needs no explanation." Like, most people can see that it needs an explanation, right? And so then they will try to give an explanation, then it will just turn out that none of the explanations are any good, right? So I mean, right? So part of the reason why we don't just go with our, um, initial intuition about politics is that we also, you might say, we have the intuition that it requires an explanation, right? Um, you know, so that's part of it. Um, another thing is, you know, the, um, the ethical intuitions that I'm appealing to, so things like, um, y- you shouldn't go up to people and just, like, steal their money, or (laughs) you know, like threaten people with violence to get their money or ... and then lock them in cages (laughs) and stuff like that. Um, these are not controversial intuitions, right? Like, these are intuitive reactions that any normal person would have, regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians. Now, the thing about the state having authority is not so uncontroversial, right? So there's a significant number of people who are called Libertarians (laughs) who do not have any intuitive reaction that the state has authority, right?

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel5:19

      Yeah.

   5. MHMichael Huemer5:19

      Um, yeah. You know, I have, like, in the book, in chapter six, I have a series of explanations for why people might have this bias in favor of the state, um, you know, based on different findings in psychology, right? But, I mean, one of the obvious things, like maybe the most obvious thing is that people have a bias towards the status quo, right? And, like, there's, there's just very clear independent evidence of that, like without talking about the problem with political authority, there's independent evidence that there's a bias for the status quo, right? Uh, so this explains why people in different societies, um, with very different customs tend to think that their customs are-... superior (laughs) to-

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel6:01

      Right.

   7. MHMichael Huemer6:01

      ... those of other societies. Like, and how could that be? Like, it has to be that they're biased in favor of the way things are done in their own society, right? Um, right, so, like, I've got an explanation of why people would have mistaken, um, moral judgments about the state.

   8. DPDwarkesh Patel6:19

      Yeah. So, uh, I, I want to talk about your second point there, which is that there's more controversy on the pol- uh, political views than there is on the, uh, basic ethical, um, intuitions about theft and so on. Um, it, it's not self-evident to me that... So there are libertarians who believe that, uh, the state should be significantly smaller, but as far as people who believe that the state has no unique authority that non-state actors have, uh, don't have, it's not self-evident to me that, like, anarcho-capitalists outnumber, uh, the people who think that you should have to pay somebody, uh, your neighbor has a right to make you pay when you have benefited from his services, even though you didn't ask for those services. Um, I, I wouldn't say that anarcho-capitalism is less controversial than that. I, I... it might be, but I'm, uh, like, that's not self-evident to me.

   9. MHMichael Huemer7:01

      Um, anar- anarcho-capitalism is controversial. (laughs)

   10. DPDwarkesh Patel7:06

       Right.

   11. MHMichael Huemer7:07

       Um, so, right, so anarcho-capitalism is the extreme version of libertarianism, right? So there are not very many of them, but there are a substantial number of libertarians, right? And pretty much all-

   12. DPDwarkesh Patel7:18

       But they still, they still hold the political... Most of them still hold the political view that, um, that the state has some unique authority, right?

   13. MHMichael Huemer7:24

       Um, no, I don't think so, right? (laughs) So, and I mean, this is, um, it's discussed in chapter seven, um, where I argue that, um, you know, what differentiates libertarians from everyone else is skepticism about authority. That is, that is the basic libertarian view. By the way, many libertarians, um, deny that this is what, what unifies libertarianism. (laughs) But, um, I think they deny that because they haven't read my book.

   14. DPDwarkesh Patel7:54

       (laughs)

   15. MHMichael Huemer7:54

       And when they read my book, they will understand that, like, you know, they may not even understand what I mean by authority and skepticism thereof, okay? But-

   16. DPDwarkesh Patel8:02

       Mm-hmm.

   17. MHMichael Huemer8:04

       Okay, this is what's common to libertarians. They think that you should apply the same moral standards to the state that you apply to ordinary people, and they do that. And then... (laughs) Right? And so when the state does something, like the state commits murder, the libertarians go, "Murder!" And, you know, the partisans of conventional political views go, "Oh, well, you know, I guess they shouldn't have done that." But, you know, but, "We're not gonna call them murderers or anything like that."

   18. DPDwarkesh Patel8:33

       Right. Yeah.

   19. MHMichael Huemer8:36

       So, like-

   20. DPDwarkesh Patel8:37

       Sorry, go ahead.

   21. MHMichael Huemer8:38

       I was gonna... There's a quotation at the end, that I put at the end of the book from, um, the Chinese philosopher Mozi, which wa- you know, like, whatever, some thousand years ago or something. (laughs) But, um, he says, you know, "To kill one man is a capital crime, and to kill 10 men is to multiply the crime by tenfold, and to kill 100 men is to multiply it by a hundredfold." Okay? And this, the rulers of the world all recognize, but when it comes to the greatest crime of all, making war on another state, they praise it, right? (laughs) Because, you know, that's just like, it's just murder, but bigger, right?

   22. DPDwarkesh Patel9:14

       Yeah.

   23. MHMichael Huemer9:15

       Um, and so he says, you know, "If a man on seeing a little black says it is black, but when seeing a lot of black says it is white, then it's clear that this person cannot distinguish black from white. And similarly, the rulers of the world cannot distinguish right from wrong."

   24. DPDwarkesh Patel9:31

       Yeah, yeah. No, it's, it's, it's an interesting point. Like, if, if we held, uh, political leaders to account the same way we hold individuals to account, um, it'd be an interesting

4. 9:39 – 18:14

   Stockholm syndrome and the charisma of power

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel9:39

      way of, uh, looking at them. Uh, so l- let me ask you about the, uh, biases you were talking about. One of the ones you point out in the book is, um, Stockholm syndrome, where a victim of abuse will feel loyalty towards their abuser and feel that the abuser is actually protecting them and will feel, um, gratitude towards small acts of mercy. Uh, I, I wonder, given the fact that people regularly, uh, criticize the president or regularly criticize government policies they disagree with, to what extent they're actually fearful of, or in, in some way, um, uh, l- uh, incorrectly loyal towards the government in this particular way because of fear of authority.

   2. MHMichael Huemer10:20

      Yeah. Um, so, you know, so the original Stockholm syndrome, you know, just for anyone-

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel10:26

      Sure.

   4. MHMichael Huemer10:26

      ... who doesn't know, uh, refers to, there was a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, whatever, like, decades ago, probably 1970s or something, where, um, the robbers took some people hostage in the bank vault. And then, basically, it turned out that the hostages kind of emotionally bond, bonded with the kidnappers. At one point, they thought that the kidnappers were protecting them from the police, right? At the end, um, the, the hostages didn't want to go out without the kidnappers because they were afraid that the police would shoot the kidnappers, right, once they got them alone, okay? (laughs) So anyway, um, and then I think one of them, like, um, you know, tried to aid in the legal defense, like started up a legal defense fund for kidnappers. Okay, and this is a phenomena that occurs periodically in hostage situations, right? It wasn't just that one case. So, like, you know, FBI negotiators are trained to be prepared for Stockholm syndrome. Um, now, you know, what happens with the government isn't literally exactly that. They're not literally kidnapping us. (laughs) But, um, my idea is, um, there's a, you know, there's a little bit broader phenomenon that people will, um, instinctively take the side of those who are, who have power over them. And there's an evolutionary explanation for why this would be, right? So, and, you know, people have said about Stockholm syndrome that it's a survival mechanism. Um, which, by the way, there's evidence for thinking that it worked because, um, the, like, the kidnappers in that case said, like, they were thinking of shooting the hostages, but they couldn't do it because of the emotional bond that they had formed with the hostages. So, um, so it might have worked.Uh, and you know, my more general point is, it's common in human societies for some to have power over others, and if the people in the weaker position form an emotional bond with the powerful people, that may help them to survive and prosper. Right? So that might be why people, um, kind of try to, try to take the side of the government, right? Uh, and then, you know, you asked about, well, um, people are often very critical of the President, and I guess I think it's because people are distinguishing the government from the current office holder. It doesn't feel like you're being disloyal to the government. What you're saying is you just want, like, the other party. Like, you wanted the other party to be in power, which, which they are also like, you know, half of the government or something like that.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel12:57

      Mm-hmm. Yeah. I, I get... so the, the, but then there's people who qu- uh, I mean, not from a libertarian perspective, there's people who question the legitimacy of the government in other ways. Uh, for example, they'll say it's, uh, systemically racist, uh, and these are also the ki- the kind of people who want to increase the size of the government. Uh, but that also seems, uh, confusing. Like if, if it's, uh... i- i- if fear of government should prevent people from... okay, so let's say it prevents them from criticizing, uh, the legitimacy of the government, but not... but it, uh, allows them to criticize the President. Why are people comfortable criticizing the legitimacy of the government in this particular way?

   6. MHMichael Huemer13:36

      I mean, I'm not sure they are questioning the legitimacy of the government.

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel13:41

      Yeah.

   8. MHMichael Huemer13:41

      Like the, you know, the social justice warriors.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel13:44

      Right.

   10. MHMichael Huemer13:44

       Um, rather than just criticizing some of its policies, right?

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel13:48

       Mm-hmm.

   12. MHMichael Huemer13:49

       Um, uh, so I mean, in my view, critic-... questioning their legitimacy would be saying, like, they shouldn't, um, they shouldn't have any entitlements that ordinary citizens don't have.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel14:01

       Right.

   14. MHMichael Huemer14:03

       So like, if ordinary citizens aren't entitled to tax each other, then the state shouldn't be able to tax us or, you know, something like that.

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel14:11

       Right.

   16. MHMichael Huemer14:12

       Um... yeah, so I... and I don't think the left-wing people think that exactly.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel14:19

       No. Okay.

   18. MHMichael Huemer14:20

       Um, but I mean, they, you know, they are like, uh, they're like sort of... actually, I mean, I... well, I'm, I'm not quite sure I understand your view, right? So, um, because I'm not quite sure I understand what the systemic racism is, right?

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel14:34

       Hm.

   20. MHMichael Huemer14:34

       So like, um, I was gonna say like they're accusing the government of being racist, but I'm not even sure that that's what it means, right? Like-

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel14:42

       Well, what are you asking?

   22. MHMichael Huemer14:42

       I'm not sure that systemic racism means that anyone is actually racist, right?

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel14:47

       That's fair, yeah. Um, I, I, I wonder to what extent... so, uh, uh, uh, René Girard thought, noticed that after Stalin died, uh, support for the Soviet Union amongst academia in the West declined, and so his hypothesis was that the academics didn't support, uh, Stalin, uh, despite his violence, but because of his violence. So it wasn't fear of authority, but more so, um, the, uh, that, the charisma of authority, that they find, uh, authority charismatic and violence charismatic. Uh, what do you think of that hypothesis?

   24. MHMichael Huemer15:20

       Um, yeah, maybe. So I mean, I'm not sure if the academics knew about Stalin's, um, murders.

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel15:29

       Right.

   26. MHMichael Huemer15:30

       Um, they might have not known because they didn't want to know, right? But... so I think there's a phenomenon that, um, horrible people are often charismatic or... right? Or, you know, charismatic to ordinary, average people.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel15:43

       Mm-hmm.

   28. MHMichael Huemer15:43

       So Stalin was probably a charismatic character, although like I haven't seen him, but, um, because, uh, like people, um... ordinary, average people don't admire moral virtue. They admire power. Like, they admire somebody who is... who appears strong and confident, right? But the people who are very strong and confident are often bad people. So like, and like the reason why they're strong is because they crushed all opposition, right? And the reason why they're confident is that they do not give a shit about other people, right? (laughs) Like if you don't, if you don't give a shit what other people think and you don't care what effect you have on other th- other people, then you don't worry. Like, you're not worried when you're talking to them because you don't care what they think about you, right? And you know, when you're prof-... when you're just taking actions, like if you're the leader and you're, like, putting forward your new policies, you do it with total confidence because you don't care if it's wrong.

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel16:46

       Right.

   30. MHMichael Huemer16:47

       (laughs) That's my read on dictators, right?
5. 18:14 – 26:55

   Moral progress

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel18:15

      so then why do you think, um, moral progress is likely if, uh, the average person, uh, cares about power or, uh, th- uh, you know, is more- is more convinced to buy power itself than c- convincing arguments or by people who care about, uh, the truth?

   2. MHMichael Huemer18:30

      Yeah. How do we get moral progress? I mean, so, uh, I mean, first, like, why do I think that there's moral progress? Because I looked at history (laughs) , right? Because, like, you look at what people were doing, you know, back in ancient Rome, you know, gladiatorial combat, they were, like, forcing slaves to fight to the death for fun because they thought it was amusing (laughs) to see them cut to pieces. And then, you know, like, just 200 years ago in America, we were enslaving just, like... Enslaving people just because they had darker skin and stuff like that. Um, so that... I mean, the evidence of there being moral progress is, um, compelling, right? It's like enormous progress. Uh, what's... But, you know, what's the explanation how did it happen? Um, I mean, I think that it's driven by a relatively small number of people, right?

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel19:17

      Mm-hmm.

   4. MHMichael Huemer19:17

      So there are a bunch of people who, um, you know, don't- don't reflect very much and just go along with the customs of their society. Um, and they're just sort of, like, um, uh, sort of neutral.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel19:30

      Right.

   6. MHMichael Huemer19:30

      And there's a small number of people who kind of see the flaws in the current... In the status quo, and they try to push society, you know, towards the- towards the moral truth, right? And, um, and they- and they push it slowly (laughs) , right? Okay. But because, um, there are always reformers who are trying to improve society, it's a constant, um... It's a constant small force. So over the course of many generations, it accumulates to a lot of progress, right?

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel20:02

      Right. Uh, so let- let me f- I've read, uh, Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, uh, which you wro- also wrote, and I want to question you on whether on net there has been moral progress. At one point in the book, you say that, um, the impact of factory farming rivals the suffering of all the humans that have ever existed. Uh, and how can a world where factory farming has been increasing be one where there's been tremendous moral progress? On net, there would seem to be moral decline, right?

   8. MHMichael Huemer20:31

      Yeah. Uh, yeah. I mean, you could make the argument... People find this shocking, but you can make the argument that, like, you know, it would have been better if there were no humans.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel20:40

      Pff.

   10. MHMichael Huemer20:40

       It's like, maybe the world would be better with no human beings, right? Because the amount of pain and suffering that we cause, just like a few years of human beings, the amount of pain and suffering that we cause to other species is probably greater than all of the suffering in all of human history, right?

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel20:56

       Mm-hmm.

   12. MHMichael Huemer20:56

       And, you know, ou- probably outweighs all of the pleasure that human beings have ever experienced, you know, among all of the 100 billion or so humans who have existed. Um, you know, that may seem shocking, but, um, the number of animals that we're torturing and killing each year is something like 74 billion.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel21:12

       Right.

   14. MHMichael Huemer21:13

       And there have only ever been 110 billion humans. So like two years of factory farming, we tortured and killed more creatures than the total number of us who have ever existed, right?

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel21:21

       Yeah.

   16. MHMichael Huemer21:22

       So, anyway, um, yeah, so like from a purely consequentialist standpoint, um, it's been like a huge regression (laughs) , okay? However, it does appear to me that it's turning around. So, um, vegetarianism and veganism are becoming more popular. When I was in college, um, you know, there were- there were not many vegetarians, and I think I never met a vegan, right?

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel21:48

       (laughs) .

   18. MHMichael Huemer21:48

       I think like nobody heard of that, and there weren't, like, vegan restaurants you could go to and stuff like that. Um, and what's ultimately... what's ultimately going to change the situation is, um, technology, right?

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel22:00

       Right.

   20. MHMichael Huemer22:01

       So now there are all of these products, there are these, um, you know, substitute products, substitutes for animal products, which are really convincing and they didn't used to be. Also, they're working on, um, synthetic meat, basically.

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel22:15

       Mm-hmm.

   22. MHMichael Huemer22:15

       So they're going to make meat without the cruelty, and that's probably what's ultimately going to end it, right? So like right now it's really bad, but it's probably (laughs) going to get better when we perfect this technology, right? Also, I mean, you know, and this kind of, um, you know, this kind of fits with what I was saying earlier. This is being driven by a small number of people, right? There's like a small percentage of society who cares 'cause there's like a small percentage of human beings who are basically morally decent, right? (laughs) Small number of people give a crap about morality at all. But, okay, but that's enough, right? So like the, um... The technological changes are being driven by, um, you know, animal welfare advocates basically.

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel22:58

       Right.

   24. MHMichael Huemer22:58

       Like that's- that's why we have people who are interested in developing synthetic meat and stuff like that.

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel23:04

       Yeah. Okay, so, uh, assuming that there's- more progress is happening, um, y- you say in the book that you expect, uh... You expect the rate of progress to increase over time b- because of exponential growth. Um, this seems to contradict a blog post you recently wrote, uh, talking about how progress will end, uh, where you said that because of diminishing marginal returns, uh, actually exponential growth has to stop, and w- you even, uh, hypothesize that it will actually decline at some point. Uh, so, I mean, you were talking about scientific and techni- technological knowledge here, but why doesn't this also apply to, uh, moral progress? Why- why won't we see, um, moral decline or just zero moral growth before we get to the point of anarcho-capitalism?

   26. MHMichael Huemer23:46

       Oh, um, I mean... So any progress has to eventually slow down. Um... And, you know, because- because I- I think there's a maximum point in everything, right?

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel24:02

       Right.

   28. MHMichael Huemer24:03

       But, uh, that doesn't mean that it will happen soon, so I c- I can't predict when it will happen. Um, eventually, civilization will collapse and we'll all die. Eventually, the human species will go extinct, but I don't know when. (laughs) Uh-huh.

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel24:15

       Yeah.

   30. MHMichael Huemer24:15

       It could be, you know, I don't know. It could be in the next 100 years or it could be in a million years, okay?
6. 26:55 – 33:37

   Growth of libertarian ideas

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel26:55

      Uh, so a- a- I'm gonna try to, uh, critique that view actually. Um, like it, it, you could say that the change in attitudes over the last few centuries has been towards greater respect for the individual, a stronger presumption against violence and coercion. But, uh, that, that, that might not be true globally because like the default state of mankind is, you know, authoritarian control, but in the United States, it seems that in the 19th century, obviously to the exclusion of Blacks and women, attitudes were far more libertarian. Uh, there's a particular example of, uh, Grover Cleveland had sent a bill from Congress a- authorizing what would be $250,000 today for some natural disaster that occurred in Texas, and he vetoes it, and he says, "First of all, I can't find any, um, authority within the Constitution to do this. Second th- this sets an expectation of, uh, you know, uh, paternalistic, uh, help from the government in the future, and we should just rely on the charity of fellow citizens. This is not the proper role of government." Uh, both parties seem to have a respect for, um, the autonom- autonomy of the individual, more so back then. Uh, so on the particular point of, uh, libertarian views, it seems that there has been regress, and I think maybe a better theory of change in attitudes has been, uh, an increase in safetyism. And in most cases this is a good thing, because countries that care about safety don't do genocides, torture, war, and so on, or, you know, like-

   2. MHMichael Huemer28:16

      Live dangerous, yeah.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel28:18

      Yeah, yeah. But, uh, it also means that they're more comfortable with regulations, with fines, with, uh, uh, n- not so, um, diligent in protecting, uh, property rights. So then this safetyism asymptotes to a regulatory state rather than anarcho-capitalism over time.

   4. MHMichael Huemer28:35

      Yeah, I mean, that, that could be true, right? So definitely the United States has had, um, growing regulation. Um, you know, back when it was first started, the, um, the Code of Federal Regulations, so this lists all of the federal regulations. It was started in, I guess, 1938 or something like this, so 1930s. It was 22,000 pages, which sounds long enough, um, but it's now over 150,000 pages, right? (laughs) Um, and, you know, like, uh, you know, the size of these regulatory agencies is growing, more employees, right? Um, so, um, I mean, it, it could be right, that that's just what's going to keep happening, right? But it's not obviously right. (laughs) Um, so I mean, there is a certain amount of pushback, and there are people who are realizing the, like, the problems with regulation. So, um, in many areas s- just many areas of human intellectual inquiry, knowledge just accumulates, and, uh, you know, we might just be in the primitive state of, you know, knowledge about social and political matters, right? Um, that, you know, it looks to me like there's, um, um, sort of accumulating libertarian sentiment. This could be wishful thinking or something. (laughs) I don't know. But like, you know, when I was in college, um, you know, like the Institute for Humane Studies, they had a summer seminar, which I went to. They had a summer seminar, but like in the next few decades, they expanded greatly, right? And, you know, these, there are these different libertarian organizations now. There was no Students for Liberty when I was in college, right? Like, that expanded also. Um, there was, um, I recall...... there being basically, like, one well-known libertarian philosopher, who was Robert Nozick. (laughs)

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel30:20

      Yep.

   6. MHMichael Huemer30:21

      And, uh, and, you know, now there, there are multiple ones, right?

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel30:24

      (laughs)

   8. MHMichael Huemer30:24

      Um, so I don't know, you know, possible. Um, you know, part of what I think was happening... So I don't know about Grover Cleveland in particular. Like, I don't know if he was, um, typical of people in that time. Um, but I mean, it... So here's an interpretation. It used to be that people believed in the authority of the state, but they just didn't care about the poor, (laughs) right? So, like, they... That's why they didn't want to do all this welfare state stuff, right? And then, you know, later it developed to where they still believe in the authority of the state, but they started caring about the poor as well. (laughs) So they thought, "Okay, well, we'll use this power to help the poor," right? So that would actually be a form of progress, even though, like, even, even though the policy is getting further from what it should be, so, like, the attitudes are getting closer to what they should be.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel31:20

      Yeah. I, so I wonder if instead of the attitudes getting, uh, closer to, um, libertarian, what's happening is just that the tails, uh, have increased. So, I mean, uh, I mean, there ins- there wasn't Students for Liberty maybe, uh, a few decades ago, but were the Democratic Socialists of America a significant force back then either? Um, or were there socialists in Congress, right? Uh...

   10. MHMichael Huemer31:41

       Yeah.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel31:41

       So I, I, I don't know if it's, uh, fair to say that the change has been towards libertarian pers- uh, libertarianism per se, rather than just towards the extremes.

   12. MHMichael Huemer31:50

       There could be. Um, yeah, I think, like, the internet culture might be making us more extreme, right? Um, it... Yeah. So, you know, it, it used to be that, um, i- information (laughs) and, uh, just like, you know, the content that people consumed was produced by this small elite. And now that everybody can have a voice on the internet, uh, yeah, there's just more room for more extremists like, like us, (laughs) right? But also like the socialists. Um. Yeah. I mean, I don't know where that's going, right? So, like, it could be that the internet is just, like, a bad influence on all of us, right?

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel32:32

       Right.

   14. MHMichael Huemer32:32

       But it could be that, you know, this is kind of like relatively early days. It could be that it's going to settle down and, and improve, right? There... So, um, there's just sort of like this, um, you know, this optimistic philosophical view that the truth wins in the end. This isn't guaranteed to happen, but generally speaking, like, good ideas tend to be more persuasive than bad ideas.

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel32:57

       Mm-hmm.

   16. MHMichael Huemer32:57

       And, and like, you know, if you have the opportunity for all the information to come out and, you know, everybody gets to share their arguments and so on, like, if you hear all of the arguments, usually that favors the correct views.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel33:10

       Yeah.

   18. MHMichael Huemer33:10

       If you assume that the libertarian view is correct, then, you know, having more information and more discussion and so on should favor it. Um, this is a general tendency. It's not guaranteed, because there are biases in the human mind, right? There could be systematic biases, um, and, um, yeah. And also, you know, the, the possibility maybe we're wrong, you know, so-

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel33:31

       Right.

   20. MHMichael Huemer33:31

       ... (laughs) maybe, maybe our view will go down because it's wrong, actually.

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel33:36

       Yeah. Maybe.

7. 33:37 – 44:37

   Does anarchy increase violence?

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel33:37

      Um, so let's talk about the actual view then. Uh, I, I, I'm gonna try to play devil's advocate now. Uh, so there's, uh... Hobbes had this idea that in order... Uh, people go engage in violence to steal each other's stuff or to launch preemptive strikes or just in, just to get revenge and glory, and then he said, "We, we need a strong government, uh, to stop this kind of violence." Now, you explained some, uh, game theoretical reasons why a strong government may in fact increase violence in those cases. Uh, but, uh, in, uh, in, uh, Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature, he lists out some empirical evidence showing that, first of all, when we go from primitive tribes to the first states, there's a decrease in violence. And then during the feudal period where thousands of independent political units merge into centralized monarchies, there's another decrease in violence. So how come it's the case that empirically speaking, whenever power so- tends to centralize, uh, the rate of violence, death, war, homicide tends to decrease?

   2. MHMichael Huemer34:37

      Oh, yeah. Uh, yeah, that could be true. So I think, um, um, it could be that the, so like, the s- the central power, the government, um, suppresses violence, suppresses the small scale violence (laughs) , right? They do large scale violence, i.e. war, but they suppress like the just ordinary one-on-one murder and so on. Um, but I mean, um, like if you're asking, well, why is it that people are prone to violence to begin with? Uh, I think like the... So I think Pinker in that book takes up the explanation, like the Hobbesian explanation, which is totally wrong and makes no sense. Okay? But, but in a different book, Pinker gives a different explanation that I think is actually correct, but I, I'm not sure if he realizes that it's a completely different explanation. Okay? So the Hobbesian explanation is, um, you know, everybody's completely selfish and everybody knows that anyone can kill anyone, and, um, you're afraid that somebody else is going to attack you and kill you, so you attack them first because there's like some advantage in combat to the person who attacks first. Okay? And, you know, this makes no sense because... So if there's more than one other person who is worried about being attacked, and you go around attacking people without provocation, then everyone else is going to know that you are the biggest threat. Like, you're the one who's most likely to attack them without provocation. So all of these people who are thinking about doing preemptive attacks, like, you become the biggest target for them, right? (laughs) So like, you know, what you should do is, uh... And you're assuming that you can't, like, immediately kill everyone else at once, right? (laughs) What you should do is, like, just try to...... mind your own business and stay away and not start any fights, right? Okay. However, this isn't what happens in primitive societies. This is not what, what human beings have actually done throughout history (laughs) . And so why is that? And I wondered about this for a long time, until I read Steven Pinker's book, How The Mind Works. There's a particular passage that explains this. And it's basically, what happened in primitive tribes was the men from one tribe would attack another tribe in order to murder the men and kidnap the women, right? And this is extremely dangerous. There's a high chance that you die when you're doing this. So on the face of it, it seems like you wouldn't do that (laughs) . Like, it doesn't, it doesn't make sense. Okay? But here's the thing, like, say there's a 45% chance that you die by starting this fight, but a 55% chance that you survive and you capture one extra wife, okay? Then your reproductive success goes up.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel37:21

      Yeah.

   4. MHMichael Huemer37:22

      Like, it doesn't seem like it's worth it if there's a 45% chance of dying (laughs) , like, just from an intuitive self-interest standpoint, but from a, from the standpoint of expected reproductive success, your expected reproductive success goes up if you presently have fewer than two wives, right? So if you have zero wives, you have nothing to lose 'cause you're gonna have zero reproductive success if you don't, right?

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel37:47

      (laughs)

   6. MHMichael Huemer37:47

      And by the way, it was probably common for men in primitive societies to have zero wives-

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel37:51

      Yeah.

   8. MHMichael Huemer37:51

      ... because most societies practiced polygyny, which means the majority of men have zero wives, right? 'Cause like, you know, there's some, like, dominant character who's taking multiple wives and so on, right? Anyway, so if you have one wife, still you have a chance of either doubling your reproductive success or cutting it down to zero. And it's a good deal as long as it's slightly more probable that you succeed, right?

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel38:14

      Right.

   10. MHMichael Huemer38:15

       Okay, so, like, that's the evolutionary explanation of why this would happen. This is super bad, right? It's very bad that that's the case, but that would explain why, um, okay, you know, human... And so human beings, like, they're not thinking that when they go to war. What's happening is they're driven by emotions, but this is all to explain why we would have the genes that would give us the emotional reactions that would make it likely for us to attack other tribes, right? (laughs)

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel38:43

       Yeah. But so long as that, uh, so long as that in- instinct exists, why won't a state without a Leviathan or a society without a Leviathan fall back into that sort of, um, it's the, the people just fall back into that emotion of conquest? Why won't that happen?

   12. MHMichael Huemer39:01

       Um, you know, private security agencies (laughs) . They'll hire private security agencies. So, I mean, the primitive tribes didn't have private security agencies. They didn't have like, uh, just, like, developed economy. Um, and you know, it might be that indeed anarchy doesn't work starting from primitive society, right? But it might still work if you transition from an advanced society, right? So like, I mean, my theory is, you know, you transition from democracy to anarchy, to anarcho-capitalism. And, uh, and it doesn't work if you just start, if you start at a much earlier stage of society, right?

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel39:40

       Mm-hmm.

   14. MHMichael Huemer39:40

       Plausibly it won't work. Um...

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel39:42

       Yeah. Yeah. I, I guess, doesn't the, uh, case for private security, doesn't it assume somewhat of a parity in resources that you could afford a similar magnitude of help? Because, uh, um, if over time, uh, rich people, just because either they're smarter or they have a lot of capital to begin with, can grow their capital stock much more than poor people, um, this is not a problem in a normal democracy, or according to me it's not a problem in a normal democracy 'cause what- what are they gonna do with it, right? But in, in, in, in-

   16. MHMichael Huemer40:14

       Buy some politicians.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel40:16

       Yeah, fair enough. In, uh, anarcho-capitalism they can buy, they can buy an army, whereas you can buy like one security guard. So then there's not a sort of parity in power and they can really roll over people.

   18. MHMichael Huemer40:29

       I mean, I, I don't, I don't buy a security guard, right? Like, I sign a contract with a security company, right? So it could be a large company-

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel40:39

       But-

   20. MHMichael Huemer40:40

       ... and I'm just one of their customers, right? but the thing is like-

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel40:44

       But he's like, he's like, "I'll pay you a billion dollars just, you know, let me get through this town."

   22. MHMichael Huemer40:47

       Yeah.

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel40:47

       He tells a sec- a private security agency that.

   24. MHMichael Huemer40:50

       Right. But what, what's his, what is his purpose? Okay, so like (laughs) , you know, Bill Gates, um, hires like some really powerful security agency and to do what?

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel41:03

       Uh, steal resources, uh, steal women.

   26. MHMichael Huemer41:06

       Okay. But (laughs) , I mean, he's got billions of dollars. Why doesn't he just buy them, right? So, right? So I mean, the thing is, like, this is why rich people usually don't do this, because they could just buy the thing that they want. That's why they don't have to steal it, right? And it's probably, it's cheaper. So like, I mean, rich people, um, rich people do well with women, right?

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel41:32

       (laughs)

   28. MHMichael Huemer41:33

       Like, Bill Gates would not have a hard time finding a wife if he didn't already have one, um, just because of that, right? And, but the thing is like, so if you want to pay somebody to help you steal money from poor people, like, okay, the amount of money that the poor people are willing to pay to not be stolen from is about equal to the value of the stuff that would be stolen, right?

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel41:56

       Mm-hmm.

   30. MHMichael Huemer41:56

       So like, what you could do is you could just buy it from them (laughs) , right?
8. 44:37 – 47:20

   Transitioning to anarchy

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel44:37

   2. MHMichael Huemer44:37

      So... But so, but, you know, it matters how this whole thing comes about, right? So if, if anarchy comes about by, you know, one day the government just disappears, right, and the cops disappear, then it would be chaos, right? So, you know, the first thing that would happen is there would be chaos in the street and the second thing that would happen is people would immediately start setting about setting up another government, right? Okay. But, um, that's why that's not the way I envision the transition (laughs) going, right? The transition would have to go by the government progressively privatizing its functions. So the government would outsource policing to private security companies, right? May- maybe they would do this gradually, and similarly, they would gradually outsource the courts to private arbitrators, right? So the idea is that the government is shrinking while at the same time the private, um, organizations that would take over those functions are growing. If the government just collapsed immediately, it's no good-

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel45:34

      Right.

   4. MHMichael Huemer45:34

      ... but if there's this, you know, simultaneous process, then, um, then you could get to a stable situation where now it's hard for an individual to overturn it.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel45:42

      Yeah. How, how soon can this happen? Uh, like if everybody agreed, you know, (laughs) humor's right, I bought this book, uh, and-

   6. MHMichael Huemer45:50

      Yeah. As soon as everyone buys my book... (laughs)

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel45:52

      (laughs)

   8. MHMichael Huemer45:53

      ... then Paradise can begin.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel45:55

      (laughs) But if, if today everybody agreed, how long would it take to, uh, privatize things to the point where we're living in a system of anarcho-capitalism without doing it too fast so that, uh, bad things start happening?

   10. MHMichael Huemer46:07

       Um, I don't know. I mean, I don't, don't have expertise on that. I have to, like, we probably have to observe things happening, right?

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel46:15

       Mm-hmm.

   12. MHMichael Huemer46:15

       But I mean, like, if people were, um, convinced, like, we have a democracy right now. If people were convinced that we should privatize more functions of the state, we can start doing that right now. (laughs)

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel46:26

       Yeah.

   14. MHMichael Huemer46:26

       Um, and, you know, sort of like depends on how cautious you want to be, but like, you know, a, a city right now could say, "Yeah, we're going to stop this police thing right now." Right? Like, like the City of Denver tomorrow could say, "We're gonna, like, start hiring private security guards to patrol, so..." And then they could pass laws to, you know, change the, change the asymmetry between government police and security guards, right?

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel46:53

       Yeah. Are, are you pro-defund the police?

   16. MHMichael Huemer46:56

       Uh, I mean, you could say that, like in principle.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel46:59

       Right.

   18. MHMichael Huemer46:59

       Yeah. But, I mean, I'm not sure what those people mean because it-

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel47:02

       Yeah.

   20. MHMichael Huemer47:02

       ... kind of sounds like they mean just cancel the police and then have no security, right? (laughs)

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel47:08

       Yeah.

   22. MHMichael Huemer47:08

       Like, no, I don't want to do that. (laughs) But I would, I would take that money and give it to private security companies. I wouldn't take it and just not give it to any security, right?

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel47:17

       Yeah. Um, uh, so here, here's a

9. 47:20 – 51:40

   Is Huemer attacking our society?!

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel47:20

      question I'll ask you. You wrote a blog post, uh, a few months back where you were criticizing social justice warriors and the 1619 Project in particular and here's what you wrote. Uh, b- you said y- uh, the title of the post is Attacking Your Own Society. You wrote, um, "Here is another plausible way of eroding norms: directly, verbally attacking the foundation of one's societies. Preaching that the society is founded on fundamentally evil values, that large parts of the so- that society have no reason to be loyal to the whole, and that its institutions are fundamentally just a sham designed to take advantage of most of its members." Now, uh, professor-

   2. MHMichael Huemer47:54

      (laughs)

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel47:54

      ... are you attacking our own society, right? You're claiming-

   4. MHMichael Huemer47:57

      (laughs) Yeah.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel47:57

      ... that coercion is legitimate. Our society is, uh, in large part founded on the idea that-

   6. MHMichael Huemer48:02

      Yeah.

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel48:02

      ... the state is legitimate, that is, coercion is legitimate. If coercion is evil, then isn't our society illegitimate? And then aren't you eroding then the norms which have bro- uh, brought us peace and prosperity then?

   8. MHMichael Huemer48:13

      (laughs) Yeah, I might be doing that. (laughs)

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel48:16

      (laughs)

   10. MHMichael Huemer48:16

       Phew. Good thing nobody listens to me. (laughs)

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel48:19

       (laughs)

   12. MHMichael Huemer48:19

       No, um, I mean, I was thinking about, um, yeah, sort of thinking about...Um, what they call the democratic norms, which is, you know, partly d- partly democracy, but a bunch of things that are associated with it that are not exactly democracy. Right? But, you know, like, um, when you lose the election, you concede, (laughs) right? Um, but, you know, also, like, with the, you know, social justice warriors just saying, like, "Everybody's racist. America is racist," and so on, right?

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel48:47

       Right.

   14. MHMichael Huemer48:47

       Um, and sort of like, um, you know, in America, there's sort of a norm of respectful discourse. Like, that's, that's one of the things that I'm worried about. There used to be maybe, and I say this because, so this is som- somewhat of a digression that's not exactly answering your question, but anyway. Um, you know, one of the things that made me think about this was, um, so many years ago, I read that some, um, pe- some, like, leaders from Iraq came to visit the United States so that they could kind of learn about how the political system works here. And, uh, you know, they visited, like, a city hall meeting in Boulder or something like this. And, like, the main impression they had was they were struck by how respectful our discourse was. And up until that point, I didn't realize that our discourse is respectful, right? (laughs) But, uh, it was true compared to other countries, right? So, like, there would be people on opposite sides, and they would be, like, disagreeing with each other, but they'd be doing it in a basically respectful way, right? Uh, and apparently that doesn't happen in other countries. Right? So, you know, one of the things I was worried about is that that's eroding. So, um, but anyway, okay. Um, and then in that blog post, like, you know, I wanna, I wanna leave room for criticizing society. I wanna leave room for saying, like, there's some stuff that's very messed up that we need to change, right? Um, so, you know, how do we do that and not, not be accused of wrongly bending the norm? So, like, I didn't have that much of an answer to that, but basically I'm thinking, well, you know, have an alternative that you're saying we should do. Like don't just attack, but say here's something we should be doing instead of what we're doing, right? And now we can compare these, and I can explain why this thing is better than the status quo, right? Okay, so that's like constructive criticism. Um, what, what I s- sort of sense from, um, left-wing ideology today is that it is a lot of attacking, right? Just, just like for the sake of, um, undermining confidence in America. Like there's a lot of just wanting to say that America is bad, not, not clearly for the sake of promoting something good instead, right? Um, and you know, like, um, I wanna say like, um, I've been known to have, um, a fair amount of criticisms of the government. (laughs) Okay? But I also want to appreciate that it's a lot better than most governments. It's like much better than the vast majority of governments that people have had.

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel51:28

       Mm-hmm.

   16. MHMichael Huemer51:28

       Right? So like just, let's just keep that in mind, right? (laughs) So let's not tear down the good stuff while we're trying to get rid of the bad stuff.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel51:37

       Yeah, yeah. That, uh, th- that makes sense. Um,

10. 51:40 – 53:18

    Huemer's writing process

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel51:41

       uh, but by the way, how long does it take you to write a blog post? Because they're all so good and you write so many of them. I- is, are you just writing it like in one state of flow? How, how much editing does it take?

    2. MHMichael Huemer51:50

       Um, yeah, I write it in an afternoon, but then I reread it multiple times.

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel51:56

       Right.

    4. MHMichael Huemer51:56

       So like, I, I don't know, so re-read it a few times that day, but then reread it the next day, and like maybe just before it goes up.

    5. DPDwarkesh Patel52:03

       Yeah.

    6. MHMichael Huemer52:04

       So I make small edits, which, you know, the small edits don't make that much difference probably, but...

    7. DPDwarkesh Patel52:09

       Mm-hmm.

    8. MHMichael Huemer52:11

       Well, yeah.

    9. DPDwarkesh Patel52:12

       Yeah, yeah.

    10. MHMichael Huemer52:12

        Like, you know, like, yeah, the total amount of writing that I've done on that blog is kind of a lot, right? (laughs) So...

    11. DPDwarkesh Patel52:18

        Yeah, yeah.

    12. MHMichael Huemer52:19

        Like one a week, so and it's been going for a couple of years, so there's like whatever is over 100 posts.

    13. DPDwarkesh Patel52:25

        Yeah. And I, I, um... It, it's amazing how, uh, digestible, uh, not just your blogs are, but, uh, just generally blog posts are and just they're bingeable in a way that books often aren't. Like for exa- I, I probably, uh, read most of Scott Alexander's writing and, you know, that's got to be at least a few books, right? But it does not feel that way at all, you know? It just feels like, yeah, it just goes by very fast and same with yours, I read... I, I don't know if I read the majority of yours, but I've certainly read a large part of it. Um...

    14. MHMichael Huemer52:53

        Yeah, read the rest of it. (laughs)

    15. DPDwarkesh Patel52:55

        (laughs)

    16. MHMichael Huemer52:55

        Oh yes, Scott Alexander is great, right?

    17. DPDwarkesh Patel52:58

        Right.

    18. MHMichael Huemer52:58

        Um, that's like, you know, that's high-quality stuff, right? That's better than, it's better than a normal book.

    19. DPDwarkesh Patel53:04

        Yeah, yeah. Um-

    20. MHMichael Huemer53:05

        Much better than academic books.

    21. DPDwarkesh Patel53:08

        Did you read his non-libertarian FAQ, by the way?

    22. MHMichael Huemer53:11

        I don't think so, no.

    23. DPDwarkesh Patel53:13

        Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's an interesting counterargument, uh, that's worth checking out. Um,

11. 53:18 – 56:39

    Is it okay to work for the government

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel53:18

       so I, I wanted to ask you, is it unethical of you to believe that coercion, uh, coercion is evil, but your b- uh, your job is subsidized by the fruits of that coercion? Is that unethical of you to have that kind of job?

    2. MHMichael Huemer53:32

       Um, I don't know. Probably not. (laughs) I don't think so.

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel53:36

       (laughs)

    4. MHMichael Huemer53:36

       Uh, you know, I talked to, um, Walter Block, um, once, you know, a couple years ago. Um, and, you know, in case anyone doesn't know, he's like a, he's a big time libertarian economist over at, um, Tulane. Wait, no. Uh, ano- another university in New Orleans. Anyway, um, uh, and his attitude was, you know, take as much money from the state as you can, right? (laughs) Because, right? Like, you know, they're... 'Cause they're going to do something bad with it (laughs) if, if you don't, and, you know, like if you don't take it, they're not gonna give it back. They're not giving it back to the taxpayers. They're just gonna, you know, they're gonna waste it on something else. And anyway, and, you know, I think his attitude was that you're sort of like, uh, helping, helping to undermine the state. Good to take money from the state to undermine the state.

    5. DPDwarkesh Patel54:23

       (laughs)

    6. MHMichael Huemer54:25

       Um, but, you know, but I should tell you, like, um, the difference between University of Colorado and a private university is minimal.Right. So I think that the state provides something like 5% of our budget. It's something like that (laughs) . Um, now, the, the state university, of course, like, universities are subsidized in general, so, like, we get a s- we get a subsidy in the same way that every other university gets a subsidy. Namely, all of these students who are paying our super high prices, um, you know, like most of them would not be paying if it weren't for financial aid-

    7. DPDwarkesh Patel55:00

       Right.

    8. MHMichael Huemer55:00

       ... which is provided by the government, right? So the government helps these people get all these loans, which they probably wouldn't take, right? (laughs) Um, so, you know, like, definitely we, the university are charging... We're overcharging, right? But, I mean, everybody's overcharging, right? (laughs)

    9. DPDwarkesh Patel55:17

       (laughs)

    10. MHMichael Huemer55:17

        And we're overcharging less than most of the universities so, okay, not so bad, but-

    11. DPDwarkesh Patel55:22

        Right.

    12. MHMichael Huemer55:22

        Um, yeah, in the libertarian society there would be, um, there'd be less universities, right?

    13. DPDwarkesh Patel55:27

        Mm-hmm.

    14. MHMichael Huemer55:27

        Because there's a market distortion, um, you know, created by all the financial aid. So there'd be less of it and, um, would I still have a job? I don't know. Like some professors would still have jobs. It wouldn't go down to zero, but it'd be, it'd be cut down significantly.

    15. DPDwarkesh Patel55:42

        Yeah, I hope you have a job in that society, but how, how would you-

    16. MHMichael Huemer55:45

        I mean-

    17. DPDwarkesh Patel55:45

        Sorry, go ahead.

    18. MHMichael Huemer55:46

        The... Yeah, I mean, like, the... You know, the government has its hands in almost everything, right? They have their h- their hands in all kinds of industries. So, you know, like, if you say, "Oh, well, I don't... I don't know, I can't work in an industry that is, like, um, benefiting from government distortions (laughs) of the economy."

    19. DPDwarkesh Patel56:03

        Right.

    20. MHMichael Huemer56:03

        There's a lot of things that you can't do, right?

    21. DPDwarkesh Patel56:06

        Mm-hmm. Yeah.

    22. MHMichael Huemer56:07

        Because I... Like what matters isn't whether nominally it's said to be a state institution or whatever, right? What matters is something like, I don't know, how much benefit they're getting from the state or something. But, like, there are lots and lots of industries that then you can work and like, oh, you couldn't be... You can't be a doctor because they're getting big benefits from, like, government regulations and so on, so.

    23. DPDwarkesh Patel56:27

        Right. Yeah. I, I wonder how much stuff you could do actually. Uh, you'd have to move into, move into the woods to actually find some sort of trade.

    24. MHMichael Huemer56:34

        (laughs)

    25. DPDwarkesh Patel56:35

        Uh, uh, let me, let me just float a few other arguments against anarchoca-

12. 56:39 – 1:02:07

    Burkean argument against anarchy

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel56:39

       capitalism for you, uh, and see how you respond. So the first is a sort of Burkean argument, like we shouldn't try things that haven't worked before.

    2. MHMichael Huemer56:48

       Yeah, yeah. I mean, um, yeah, you know, you can imagine somebody saying this back when the US was founded, right? They could have said, "This democracy thing, it never works," right? (laughs) They tried it in Athens and it didn't work out well. And, um, you know, notice how all the countries in the world are dictatorships. This just shows that that's the natural state, right? Society evolves to dictatorship, which is a, you know, a lot like what people say about anarcho-capitalism, right? Like we have states everywhere, it must be that that's the only stable society, right? Okay. Now, um, you know, you might say correctly, "Well, it's kind of like, kind of anecdotal," (laughs) right? Like, okay, that's just one case, right? And so I'm not saying that that means that every radical change is worth trying, right? (laughs)

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel57:34

       (laughs)

    4. MHMichael Huemer57:34

       Okay, but... Okay, but so, you know, that's just to prepare you for the fact that there could be big fundamental progress that we don't, we don't want to rule out, right? By being overly conservative. Okay, but we do want to be careful about the way we pursue progress, right? Because, like, if you make radical changes, you should expect there to be u- unexpected consequences, right? Okay, but so what you should do to mitigate this is to move kind of gradually, right? So, um, you know, there's a lecture by Bryan Caplan that you can find online somewhere where, um, there was a title there, something like Less Than the Minimum, where his idea was you could have a subminimal state. And so the minimal state has police, courts and military legislature or something like that. You could have a subminimal state, which, um, they privatize the police force, and then they could privatize the court system, right? And so that doesn't completely eliminate them, right? (laughs) Um, doesn't completely eliminate the state, but it makes it much smaller. Okay. And so you can imagine this, this process where the government could be progressively outsourcing police duties, which by the way, they have done in some places. There are some places where the government will hire private security instead of using their own police, okay? They could progressively outsource court duties, and there are some cases where that happens as well. There's some cases where the government court will refer you to a private arbitrator. Um, but they could start doing that more and more. Okay, and so the person who's worried that anarcho-capitalism would be a disaster, you know, now they, they should answer at what point in this process they think that disaster would happen, right? It's like-

    5. DPDwarkesh Patel59:20

       Yeah.

    6. MHMichael Huemer59:21

       ... if you make this transition gradually, like, I don't see where a disaster would happen. So you could get pretty close to anarchy, but, you know, you still have like somebody that is, um, saying the rules. Like, you don't have a police force anymore, you don't have courts anymore, but they are giving rules to the police and the courts. So, okay, um, and, you know, like if you're, if you're already sympathetic to libertarianism, we could eliminate all these, you know, business regulations and all this. The government could be much smaller. Um, and you think, okay, so do we need that last bit, right? Which is like, I guess the legislature. Uh, and then I guess there's the military, we might need that actually, you know. Might

    7. NANarrator1:00:02

       Right.

    8. MHMichael Huemer1:00:03

       ...

    9. NANarrator1:00:03

       bring it up.

    10. DPDwarkesh Patel1:00:03

        Well, what about the argument from the black swan that at every stage like this you might have a 1% chance of destroying everything we might care about? And you make a similar argument actually in Dialogues Against... uh, uh, Dialogues about Ethical Vegetarianism where you say, um, even i- even if you alone st- uh, stopping eating meat doesn't, you know, cause people to produce less meat, the... in expected value terms, if like every 100th person stopping eating meat like causes a decrease in animal suffering, it's still worth it for you to do that. In a similar way here, if-

    11. MHMichael Huemer1:00:32

        Yeah.

    12. DPDwarkesh Patel1:00:33

        I- I don't know, if ev- at every 10th increment of decreasing the state it's possible that something bad happens.

    13. MHMichael Huemer1:00:38

        Yeah.

    14. DPDwarkesh Patel1:00:38

        It's still, it's still, uh, it's still good to not try it.

    15. MHMichael Huemer1:00:42

        Well, like w- yeah. But I mean, we don't have any evidence for that premise, right? (laughs) We don't have any evidence that something bad happens at every 10 stage or whatever.

    16. DPDwarkesh Patel1:00:52

        Yeah.

    17. MHMichael Huemer1:00:52

        Um, I mean, the thing is like, um... Sure, anything that you try could have some unknown bad effect, right? And s- by definition, it's unknown, so I can't give an argument that it won't happen, right? 'Cause we haven't specified what it is. Okay? I do wanna say though, that like bad stuff could happen from maintaining the status quo too.

    18. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:15

        Yeah. Yeah.

    19. MHMichael Huemer1:01:16

        And so like, you know, in the book, I mentioned that, um, actually there's a pretty good chance that the government is going to kill all of us, right? (laughs)

    20. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:23

        (laughs)

    21. MHMichael Huemer1:01:23

        Like I don't think that's a, uh, outlandish possibility, right? Like they've, actually I think they've come kind of close to that a few times. So there were a few times-

    22. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:32

        Oh, you mean nuclear?

    23. MHMichael Huemer1:01:34

        Yeah. There were a few times when we were pretty close to a nuclear war. And so like they could have killed everyone. Luckily they didn't, but that doesn't mean that we can just like keep going, right? (laughs) Just keep going forever and it's al- always gonna be fine, right?

    24. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:47

        Yeah.

    25. MHMichael Huemer1:01:47

        Um, we probably have people right now who are working on, you know, bigger, more destructive weapons, right? More destructive but cheaper, right? So we probably have people who are working on biological weapons or you know-

    26. DPDwarkesh Patel1:02:00

        Mm-hmm.

    27. MHMichael Huemer1:02:00

        ... other things, nanotech weapons or things like that.

    28. DPDwarkesh Patel1:02:03

        Yeah. Thi- this actually leads to, uh, my next argument against anarcho-capitalism,

13. 1:02:07 – 1:11:58

    The case for tyranny

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:02:08

       which is a sort of a Nick Bostrom, uh, vulnerable worlds hypothesis, if you've heard of that. Basically the idea is with every new technology you discover, there's some small chance that it- it allows us to destroy everything. Like it's this technology that allows one guy with 50 grand to, uh, destroy an entire city. Uh, and in such a world, you need strong government regulation in the sectors where this kind of technology is possible, and without a government that regulates this kind of development, it's almost guaranteed that something bad's gonna happen.

    2. MHMichael Huemer1:02:37

       Yeah. I mean, in fact, I think I had a blog post that was kind of about this, right? (laughs) And, um, which, you know, which I- I guess I view as the strongest argument for strong state. Um, and yeah, I- I think it was titled, you know, something about the case for tyranny or something like that.

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:02:57

       Yeah.

    4. MHMichael Huemer1:02:57

       And then eventually people started arguing about whether I should have used the word tyranny there. Like (laughs) oh, it's not necessarily tyrannic, right? But it's just an argument that there needs to be somebody like monitoring individuals in a pretty close way, right? So like, you know, not- not having much privacy and able to stop them.

    5. DPDwarkesh Patel1:03:17

       (laughs)

    6. MHMichael Huemer1:03:17

       Right. Um, so that might- that might be the case if you're in a society in which one person has the ability to release a world destroying weapon, right? Now, uh, right now that's not the case, but yeah, as technology advances, that could definitely happen, right? Because as technology advances, like what just- what- what it means is that you can produce larger effects with smaller effort, right?

    7. DPDwarkesh Patel1:03:40

       But- but then isn't the worry that by the time you get to that point, you've already destroyed the state capacity to regulate that kind of stuff? And so you might- you might as well preserve the state, and also for most of human history, if there is going to be a human history, that's going to be the state. I mean, if these weapons come around in 100 years and there's like a million years of humanity left, then for most of it we're gonna need a state anyways. So what's the big benefit of doing anarcho-capitalism now?

    8. MHMichael Huemer1:04:03

       Yeah, I mean, you know that- that might be right, right? Like, I mean, like I think this is the strongest argument for keeping the state. Um, but, you know, I think there is a... Like there's an argument on the other side which is, well, actually the government is likely to be the ones who develop the deadly technology, right? So so far there's one technology that would plausibly be capable of killing everyone. That's nuclear weapons, and it was created by the government and has only ever been used by the government. But in fact, I think every weapon of mass destruction has been created by governments. Well, most weapons have been created by governments, right? (laughs)

    9. DPDwarkesh Patel1:04:44

       But isn't that a bit like saying in like the year ni- 1800, well everything good that's ever... If you're an atheist and arguing for atheism, somebody can say well all the bridges and all the really cool things, all the knowledge has been made by, um, religious people. But- but you could respond, well that's because there's been nobody else around, right? Like if there's- if there's not an anarcho-capitalist society where you're permitted to build nuclear weapons on your own, then obviously the state is... Sorry, go ahead.

    10. MHMichael Huemer1:05:07

        If everyone is religious, then yeah all the good things are going to be created by (laughs) religious people. But not everyone is a government employee, right? And just-

    11. DPDwarkesh Patel1:05:16

        But they- you can't just build a nuclear bomb while states are dominant. They- they won't let you. But if you can, then you might.

    12. MHMichael Huemer1:05:25

        (laughs) Uh, yeah so before the nuclear bomb was invented, could- could a private individual have invented it? Pffft, I don't know. I mean after it was invented by the US government, then the US government would stop anyone else from building them. But before they, you know, before it had been discovered, um, I don't know why a private person couldn't have done it-

    13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:05:47

        Fair enough.

    14. MHMichael Huemer1:05:48

        ... except that it's super expensive and, you know, no like... there wasn't a person who had a good incentive to do it, I guess. But um, uh anyway, yeah so um you might think yeah but if we didn't have a government then maybe there would be more... I don't know, would there be more people who are trying to build weapons of mass destruction? Um, I- I wouldn't think that. I mean I- I mean I understand why governments are doing this, right? (laughs) Like they... Well there's this thing called war that happens between states and like and so they build all these standing armies and so they just... they're constantly looking for bigger and more powerful weapons, right? And so like that's just like this constant um pro-destruction destructive technology lobby, right? So I mean it just looks like that's the way to accelerate the time that we get the world destroying technology.Right. Um, okay, but, you know, but, um, I'm not sure because, um, you might say, yeah, even though the government is gonna create this technology, (laughs) like, they're going to create the world-destroying technology sooner. You might say, "But they're still safer," right? 'Cause, like, you know, maybe private parties will develop that technology much later, but when they do, then someone is gonna release it, right? Um, unless there's a government to stop them. Okay.

    15. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:16

        Yeah.

    16. MHMichael Huemer1:07:17

        But, by the way, like, I'm s- I'm not sure that the government is gonna stop it even if they're, if they continue to exist, right?

    17. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:24

        Yeah.

    18. MHMichael Huemer1:07:25

        So, like, um, you know, one of the things I'd be worried about now is genetic engineering of biological weapons, so maybe somebody could engineer a virus that would be extremely dangerous and would cause the extinction of the species, right? Like, so, you know, that might happen just naturally, but it's a lot more likely if somebody's trying to make it happen, and that might just become cheaper and cheaper. So, you know, you might think, "Oh, we need the government to stop that from happening," although I'm not sure the government will actually stop it even if we have them, right?

    19. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:56

        Yeah.

    20. MHMichael Huemer1:07:56

        And, and I think there's a fair chance the government will cause it because, you know, they might actually, like, hire people (laughs) deliberately to create biological weapons. So, you know, it's a little hard to say. Um, you know, the alternative you might want is you might want sort of, um, you know, distributed monitoring, like, people monitoring each other, just regular people monitoring each other all the time.

    21. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:21

        Yeah.

    22. MHMichael Huemer1:08:21

        Rather than, like, a single central authority monitoring everyone else.

    23. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:26

        Yeah. B- blockchain, but for nuclear weapons? (laughs)

    24. MHMichael Huemer1:08:29

        (laughs) Um, I guess.

    25. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:31

        Good one.

    26. MHMichael Huemer1:08:31

        I mean, I think... Is this Neal Stephenson's idea? I mean, I think I got this from some science fiction author, right? (laughs)

    27. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:38

        Sorry.

    28. MHMichael Huemer1:08:38

        There should be... Everybody should be watching everyone else, not one organization watching everyone else.

    29. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:44

        Is this from a book? Uh, a book of his?

    30. MHMichael Huemer1:08:47

        Um, I just heard about this on the internet, so.
14. 1:11:58 – 1:25:55

    Underrated/overrated

    1. MHMichael Huemer1:11:58

       which was a pro- programming langu- language that I guess nobody uses anymore, right? (laughs) Um, but, you know, it was not enough for me to do anything useful with it.

    2. DPDwarkesh Patel1:12:07

       Right.

    3. MHMichael Huemer1:12:07

       But many years later, I discovered that there's a language called GameMaker language-

    4. DPDwarkesh Patel1:12:12

       Oh.

    5. MHMichael Huemer1:12:12

       ... that some guy wrote, and it's really good for writing games. So I tried writing a game using that.

    6. DPDwarkesh Patel1:12:18

       Ah, fun. Um, the class of, uh, uh, uh, the class of people called public intellectuals.

    7. MHMichael Huemer1:12:25

       Oh, uh, hmm. Yeah, I mean, they're, they're greatly overrated by some (laughs) and underrated by others, I guess. Like, I, I like public intellectuals. So, I mean, um, I think the academic intellectuals underrate the public intellectuals.... because they're like, "Oh, yeah. These public intellectuals are not being rigorous enough," or, "They're not, like, citing all the academic literature." And the thing is, yeah, the reason they're not doing that is no one will listen to them if they start blabbing on about boring stuff. (laughs) Like, you know, boring little details that are in the academic literature, okay? So, (laughs) um, yeah, I guess, uh, yeah, I guess underrated is the answer.

    8. DPDwarkesh Patel1:13:11

       Right. How about, uh, intellectuals outside academia? Or maybe not even intellectuals, but thinkers outside a- academia who have a blog but aren't associated with an academic institution? So for example, uh, people like Scott Alexander.

    9. MHMichael Huemer1:13:24

       Yeah. I mean, like, well, Scott Alexander is probably correctly rated because, like, I think that he has an extremely high reputation among people who know who he is, right?

    10. DPDwarkesh Patel1:13:33

        Right.

    11. MHMichael Huemer1:13:33

        Um, although I guess not enough people know who he is, so...

    12. DPDwarkesh Patel1:13:36

        Yeah.

    13. MHMichael Huemer1:13:37

        Um, but, you know, about, about non-academic intellectuals more generally? I don't know. So, um, I mean, most non-academic intellectuals, I think, are not good.

    14. DPDwarkesh Patel1:13:49

        (laughs)

    15. MHMichael Huemer1:13:49

        And like, so like not, not worth reading, or they wouldn't-

    16. DPDwarkesh Patel1:13:52

        Nah.

    17. MHMichael Huemer1:13:53

        ... wouldn't be worth it to me to read, and I don't think worth it to other people to read, but, um, but that's, you know, I'm like, I'm not trying to be a snob or whatever. (laughs) Um, but I think it's, I think it, because you learn stuff when like, when you go to graduate school and you get a PhD, they actually teach you some stuff.

    18. DPDwarkesh Patel1:14:12

        Right.

    19. MHMichael Huemer1:14:12

        Right? And one of the thing, one of the problems is, like, if, um, if you don't go through that kind of training, like people are naturally lazy, and like in order to do stuff that's really good and useful, um, it requires work and effort and stuff like this that is not... It requires some stuff that's not so fun, right? (laughs) And then, and, um, you know, like, or reading a bunch of literature and, you know, finding out what people really think, right? And, um, you're just not gonna do that unless you have like... Well, few people will do it unless they have somebody else who's telling them, "You have to do this." (laughs)

    20. DPDwarkesh Patel1:14:52

        Right.

    21. MHMichael Huemer1:14:52

        And that's what happens when you're in graduate school, right?

    22. DPDwarkesh Patel1:14:54

        Yeah. Yeah. It's the Milgram experiment but for a- a- academic discipline.

    23. MHMichael Huemer1:14:59

        Yeah.

    24. DPDwarkesh Patel1:15:00

        Yeah.

    25. MHMichael Huemer1:15:00

        And so, you know, like, um, you know, I w- I run into people, like on the internet and whatever, and sometimes I get email from random people. And, um, and like, you know, there are people who have like written their, they've written their treatise on something or whatever, um, and they just don't realize that, you know, like, they don't know what's going on, right? Like, they don't, like so like they just haven't read the stuff that's written on the topic that they're writing about.

    26. DPDwarkesh Patel1:15:29

        Mm-hmm.

    27. MHMichael Huemer1:15:29

        So they don't know that they're, A, reinventing the wheel, but B, like doing a simplistic version of it, right? Like they're defending a view that has already been defended, but they are defending the simplest, like least adequate version of it because they haven't looked at all the objections that, you know, cause the view to be modified, and, you know, they, and they don't know what the reasons why it's wrong, and like, they don't know what the alternative views are so like they can't adequately respond to them. Or they'll respond to alternatives that are stupid and don't need to be discussed, right? (laughs) So, you know, that's like a thing that happens.

    28. DPDwarkesh Patel1:16:01

        If you were outside of acad- if, if you, for some reason, didn't get into grad school, but l- let's say on the side you were still publishing a blog, how much worse do you think you would be without the benefit of grad school?

    29. MHMichael Huemer1:16:13

        Um, I don't know. Um, I'm, I mean, you know, there's a possibility that, um, it's, it's actually a selection effect rather than- (laughs)

    30. DPDwarkesh Patel1:16:26

        Right.

Episode duration: 1:37:04