Kling v. Huemer

Arnold Kling also has a third post, to which Michael Huemer responded in the comments.

Arnold's points are very good and I don't see Huemer coming even close to addressing them (or often merely begging the question). Moreover, saying that we're not on the verge of collapse misses the point that this may be so because of these conventions that he finds illegitimate. As Arnold says, he has no serious real world examples even close to his ideals so most of us see no reason to take his idealized libertarianism seriously. Hence, he does nothing to assuage us on grounds of logic or empirics.

True, not just any old person has the right to morally transgress against others like this, but an office does. This is because the office is a social convention, and a lot of people like it and think it's a good idea. Therefore, that lot of people have the right to transgress against those with whom they disagree.

Tell me you have better critics.

It seems like Arnold Kling is reinventing John Searle's institutional theory :)