NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the foundation of power? I believe the only acceptable answer is force. Why do you pay taxes? Because the government has more power than you do; they can use the power of the police to enforce their will on you, and you don't have the ability to resist. You can grumble about it, but the taxes are still paid.

Why do students obey the teachers when the teachers tell them to do something they don't want to? The teachers have the ability to inflict punishments that outweigh the annoyance of the rule or work.

Let's take a case study. Teacher A imposes an arbitrary and stupid rule on his class; say, no two male students can sit next to each other. The students are not happy about it, and the next day they all don't do their homework. In retaliation, the teacher docks everyone's grades. The students stop paying attention in class, and talk over the teacher. The teacher suspends them all, and reminds them that the weight of the law, their parents, and their futures are all pressuring them to conform to the teacher's rule. The students' attempt at collective action fails. The guys all sit next to girls, and vice versa.

But what happens in a world where we take away the ability to use force. What happens when the teacher can't call the truancy police, the parents won't put their kids in house arrest, and colleges don't read the teacher's grade reports? The students all refuse to do their work. And Marx's perscription comes true. The students, in this class struggle the proletariat, start to dicate the teacher's policies, because the teacher can't use force to make them obey his will. And he won't persuade the students to obey such a dumb rule. And there you go. Rule changs.

So here's the question: Is my analysis that all authority is founded on force correct? Can authority exist in a world without compulsion? Or will a mass of people just become a new authority?

Discuss.

P.S. You wonder where the tennis part comes into play. I've seen the best example of functioning collectiver resistance in a tennis clinic. The kids whine, drag their feet, and complain whenever the instructors do anything other than let them play games. And the instructors can't hit them, because parents would complain, and kicking them out is iffy it best, given how the kids are to each other. You're the instructor. What do you do?

Why do you pay taxes? Because the government has more power than you do; they can use the power of the police to enforce their will on you, and you don't have the ability to resist. You can grumble about it, but the taxes are still paid.
History has already proven this wrong.

What is the foundation of power? I believe the only acceptable answer is force. Why do you pay taxes? Because the government has more power than you do; they can use the power of the police to enforce their will on you, and you don't have the ability to resist. You can grumble about it, but the taxes are still paid.

Why do students obey the teachers when the teachers tell them to do something they don't want to? The teachers have the ability to inflict punishments that outweigh the annoyance of the rule or work.

Let's take a case study. Teacher A imposes an arbitrary and stupid rule on his class; say, no two male students can sit next to each other. The students are not happy about it, and the next day they all don't do their homework. In retaliation, the teacher docks everyone's grades. The students stop paying attention in class, and talk over the teacher. The teacher suspends them all, and reminds them that the weight of the law, their parents, and their futures are all pressuring them to conform to the teacher's rule. The students' attempt at collective action fails. The guys all sit next to girls, and vice versa.

But what happens in a world where we take away the ability to use force. What happens when the teacher can't call the truancy police, the parents won't put their kids in house arrest, and colleges don't read the teacher's grade reports? The students all refuse to do their work. And Marx's perscription comes true. The students, in this class struggle the proletariat, start to dicate the teacher's policies, because the teacher can't use force to make them obey his will. And he won't persuade the students to obey such a dumb rule. And there you go. Rule changs.

So here's the question: Is my analysis that all authority is founded on force correct? Can authority exist in a world without compulsion? Or will a mass of people just become a new authority?

Discuss.

P.S. You wonder where the tennis part comes into play. I've seen the best example of functioning collectiver resistance in a tennis clinic. The kids whine, drag their feet, and complain whenever the instructors do anything other than let them play games. And the instructors can't hit them, because parents would complain, and kicking them out is iffy it best, given how the kids are to each other. You're the instructor. What do you do?

This is essentially the quandry God has had to deal with in chosing not to impose His will on humanity and rather allowing self-governance. The only way force can ever removed from the position of power it holds is for everyone in existance to chose to act from a position of selfless love for God and others... Until then, force rules.

More people should read the Declaration of Independence.

History has already proven this wrong.
No. Wrong. I'm speaking about an individual level. I can't overthrow the state on my own, as much as I might want to. Talk to some of the anti-tax people on this board. Ask why they pay their taxes.

More people should read the Declaration of Independence.
I've read in the double digits (10 or more times). Relevance much? It's not like it enshrines the right to rebellion. More people should study the Civil War. It illustrates my point rather nicely.

So here's the question: Is my analysis that all authority is founded on force correct? Can authority exist in a world without compulsion? Or will a mass of people just become a new authority?
In your case study the students become the new authority, so then, yes one group will always take power. Someone has to be in charge in every situation, so if the old order is given the heave-ho, then someone else (generally the organization that heaved out the old leaders) will take control.

But what happens in a world where we take away the ability to use force. What happens when the teacher can't call the truancy police, the parents won't put their kids in house arrest, and colleges don't read the teacher's grade reports? The students all refuse to do their work. And Marx's perscription comes true. The students, in this class struggle the proletariat, start to dicate the teacher's policies, because the teacher can't use force to make them obey his will. And he won't persuade the students to obey such a dumb rule. And there you go. Rule changs.
Except, their is no point to the school if no one pays attention to what goes on in it. Trust me, the proletariot are often their because they are better leaders than us pond scum. And if they aren't serving their role as better leaders, then they will be removed eventually.

P.S. You wonder where the tennis part comes into play. I've seen the best example of functioning collectiver resistance in a tennis clinic. The kids whine, drag their feet, and complain whenever the instructors do anything other than let them play games. And the instructors can't hit them, because parents would complain, and kicking them out is iffy it best, given how the kids are to each other. You're the instructor. What do you do?
I quit. The instructors aren't there for any reason other than to serve as scapegoats. If they were really allowed to lead, then some kids would be getting kicked out. Until then, the only purpose they serve is babysitter and the person who gets screwed when everything goes wrong.

During the American Civil War, the southern states rebelled because they didn't like what was going on.

During the American Revolutionary War, the Americans rebelled because they didn't have a say in what was going on.

If you don't like the taxes, go vote on proponents of lower, or no taxes.

Discuss.
Interesting, although I would argue that the power exists because a collective (if you will) benefit that we gain from it.
Someone at some point decided it would be best if the teacher could grade, or even expell, students. Probably not out of lust for power on behalf of the teacher, but because it is necessary for the system to function.
Same thing with government - some necessity (and here is where the question comes up: Who decided?) dictated that a government have the power to impose its' will on the people.
A "hive mind"? Or just the laws of nature?
Hmmm....

Early Confucian thinkers believed that moral virtue and uprightness created a force of persuasion that gave power to leaders. They belived that a ruler that was pure, good, just, and virtuous would over awe rebellious subjects into submission. They took the idea that the increasing conflict of the world was a sign of the decline of human civilization into barbarity, and that concerted efforts could slow or stop this process.

This also blended significantly with the concept of Chinese civilization as "civilization" itself. The Sino-centrism of early Confucian thought colored almost all other schools of thought that came out of it.

However significant thinkers such as Wu-tzu, Sun Pin, and others questioned the totality of moral virtue as a persuasive power. They provided numerous examples where rebellions occured and the famous rulers of old were forced to resort to arms. They used ancient rulers as examples, and even paragons of military discipline; crediting them with inventing swords, formations, and the martial disciplines.

These semi-legendary conflicts provided basis for the thought that moral virtue was in fact NEVER enough to promote civilization and peace. That while authority can flow from diginity and virtue, force must be used to bring some into the fold.

Its an interesting study in the nature of power, I think what you're saying is that authority without force is simply an illusion. History seems to agree with you; however the illusion of authority can be mantianed for significant periods without force being used.

This is where the authority=force argument gets a little grey...authority is not force, but without force it is merely a facade. Force is not authority per se either, but with force authority can be created.

The foundation of power is not force. Force has only evolved as a way to secure and retain power and increase it. The notion of power itself is derived directly from fear. For instance, why do we give the Bush administration the power to do something like the Patriot Act? Because we live in perpetual fear that if it were not enacted, we would be subjected to more terrorist attacks. The only reason government was created in the first place was for protection, i.e. defense against some danger. Pretend you are a commoner during the dark ages, wandering with your family in search of farm land. You are constantly affraid that you might be attacked by some raiders of highway robbers. As a result, you pledge your services to a lord in return for protection against these forces. Not only is this the foundation of feudalism, but the foundation of power and all government.

Actually we should be careful to stick to proper definitions.
I was referring to "Legitimate Power" as opposed to things like "Expert Power" and "Referent Power"...
So just the Power given to someone formally and officially in an organisational context.