March 28, 2017 at 10:58 am #225
The Problem of Political Authority
An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey
by Michael Huemer
March 30, 2017 at 10:45 am #234
I’m curious what Michael Huemer would think of your webbing his book, in full. Someone asked him about his thoughts on intellectual property during a discussion of his book, and he suggested that people could use contracts to try and duplicate the effects of intellectual property, and asked that people not pirate his book. I found it interesting that he neither advocated outright abolition, the way many libertarians do, nor advocated keeping it in its current form. Of course, he does strike me as the sort of person who would have a nuanced view.
I’m guessing Huemer would hope people would purchase his book, rather than simply reading your webbed version, but at the same time I doubt he will try to sue you for copyright infringement or force you to take it down. For my part, I think I shall encourage people to buy it, (and/or his other books,) to support him, but also thank you for webbing it. I really hope as many people read it as possible, and I would rather they read it without supporting Huemer financially than not read it at all.
April 4, 2017 at 2:40 pm #248
I’ve never read any of his work. I’ve only seen video on Larkin Rose and read one of his books.
April 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm #255
I think you may enjoy reading Huemer’s book, Im1wthu11. I think part of the reason I liked it was because I have an obsessively analytical personality, and Huemer goes into such detail. He goes to great lengths to figure out the best possible defenses of government and to clearly explain why they fail. I think he does a great job of making readers feel like he’s thought of whatever concerns or objections they might raise. Even when he doesn’t explicitly discuss an objection, one gets the impression he probably thought of it, weighed it against other things he could talk about, and chose which points to discuss carefully and deliberately.
He also has a matter-of-fact way of writing, which works because he combines it with detailed discussions that help readers accept that he has earned his conclusiveness, even if they disagree with him.
I’m not sure if I’d say it’s my absolute favorite philosophy book, but it’s one of my favorites. I enjoy dreaming about being able to write as well as he can, someday.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.